--- ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
> On 9 May, 2007, at 12:36 AM, andie nachgeborenen
> wrote:
> >
> > My score was 3.4. Actually I though the quiz was
> quite
> > revealing. I found it a bit disconcerting.
> >
>
> And I thought you were the second wisest person
> (after Ian), on LBO!
Do not confuse "wise guy" with "wise man."
> I have clearly been too humble ;-).
>
> Like Joanna, I found the quiz silly, but then I
> wonder: perhaps the
> answers aren't being used the way I imagine (the
> straightforward way:
> you are "wise" if you "put yourself in the other
> person's shoes",
> etc). Some of the questions were poorly designed,
> though (involving
> quantification confusion).
>
> --ravi
>
On reflection I think the test does not disambigute several sense of wisdon as we use the word:
1. Prudence ("It would be wise of you to obet the police.")
2. Judgment about the right thing to do all things considered.
3. Understanding of one's situation and place in the world.
and somrthing not actually connected in any obvious way to wisdom:
(Not at all the sa
A friend, now suffering from chronic illness, whom I consider to be actually very wise and who is trained in quantitative research design remarks as follows.
>This isn't a terribly bad test, but it has some
problems in it.
First, it gives you more points if you take on other people's problems as your own, are willing to spend endless time feeling sorry for them, give them support when they need it, and enjoy talking to them rather than wanting to get away and be by yourself.
It thus is biased in favor of:
* Extraverts
* People who are well
. . . . I think it is wrong for this test to suggest that wise people spend a lot of time helping and interacting with others. It depends on the circumstances.
Extraverts are not better than introverts. On average extraverts might be more successful than introverts, but that's a different issue. One is born with a particular temperament, and learning to do the things that are right _for you_ is a mark of having acquired wisdom.
Another way in which I'm not certain this test is a good one is that it suggests that people should get as much information as possible about things even if it's unpleasant. Other research suggests that focusing too much on negatives (which is what you have to do if you want to know everything) can create unproductive unhappiness, and I think that perhaps a wise person might arguably avoid this emotion. (The fact that I myself was able to honestly answer the questions that I always gather as much info as I can about everything does not mean that I am confident that this is a wise course of action.....it's just the only one open to me considering the type of person I am.)
There's a lot in here about tolerance for ambiguity. This suggests that liberals are wiser than conservatives, since the latter have a very low tolerance for ambiguity. On the other hand, Democrats have such a high tolerance for ambiguity that (historically.....e.g. prior to uniting against GWB) they've never been able to agree about anything. I'm not sure the latter course is always that wise.
Getting along with people and always seeing the good in them is seen as wise here. Probably that's true. But since the test doesn't include a component about using one's intuition about knowing when not to trust others, merely doing well on this section of the test does not mean that one will not get into big trouble in the real world. For instance, making friends with a potential stalker seems to me to be a very unwise move indeed. And if you're never annoyed with unhappy people feeling sorry for themselves, you may end up doing something like giving them money that they don't really need.....thus making things worse for them and for yourself. (And while it could be argued that it's better to feel sorry for them but still make a considered decision not to give money, that kind of wisdom is of a superhuman kind that most people cannot pull off on a regular basis. Not feeling sorry for people in certain circumstances is, I think, a good defense mechanism.)
I kind of object to the one about how wise people don't believe they would feel better if circumstances were different. It seems to me that an exception should be made at the very least for people who would like to change their circumstances so that they can use their gifts (whatever they are) more fully. It seems to me that a wise person makes efforts to do that, and actually does take long-term satisfaction in succeeding at that goal. . . . . I think that your wanting to do something other than work for a big law firm (and believing that you would be happier if that occurred) was a mark of having acquired wisdom about yourself and about the world as well.
Also, there's a minimum threshold that people need. If your child is dying because you can't afford healthcare, or if you're starving to death, or if you're any person currently living in Iraq, I'd venture to say you'd likely feel better if your circumstances were different. That would just be a statement of fact, not a mark of not being wise. I suppose one could argue that people in these circumstances would not be reading this sort of pointless quiz in the NYT, and perhaps that's true. But if the instrument is valid, it should apply in all circumstances.
There are a number of questions that suggest that being able to tolerate all kinds of people is a good thing. Probably this is wise, although in some cases (e.g. feeling comfortable hanging around all kinds of people) I'm not sure it's wholly realistic for anyone.
A lot of the questions have to do with Not Wasting Time on non-productive emotions, which I think is wise. Again though, it suggests that wise people spend time feeling sorry for other people. (I checked that to see if indeed was better in terms of doing well on the test to always feel sorry for others, which was the case.) Too much feeling sorry seems to me to be Wasting Time, though. If you can do something productive (in utilitarian self-and-other terms), fine. But anyone who spent their time feeling sorry any time anyone else voiced unhappiness would have no time left to do anything else. That does not seem very wise to me.
The rest of the questions have to do with making the effort to look at things from the other guy's point of view. I tend to think this is wise in general, although maybe with some pondering I would come up with important exceptions.
I got a 3.9 for what I feel like now. When I re-took it with regard to what my answers would have been before I started taking this drug, it was a 4.4. This is proof that the test is problematic.
[My friend believes, and I agree, that she has become more wise since she became ill.]
Its results should not vary based on the short-term situation that one is in. A wise person is wise all the time, not just when his/her life is going well.
I think I could write a much better test than this, although it's not a terrible first cut.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com