How to make wise decisions
Across cultures, wisdom has been considered one of the most revered human qualities. Although the truly wise may seem few and far between, empirical research examining wisdom suggests that it isn’t an exceptional trait possessed by a small handful of bearded philosophers after all – in fact, the latest studies suggest that most of us have the ability to make wise decisions, given the right context.
‘It appears that experiential, situational, and cultural factors are even more powerful in shaping wisdom than previously imagined,’ says Associate Professor Igor Grossmann of the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. ‘Recent empirical findings from cognitive, developmental, social, and personality psychology cumulatively suggest that people’s ability to reason wisely varies dramatically across experiential and situational contexts. Understanding the role of such contextual factors offers unique insights into understanding wisdom in daily life, as well as how it can be enhanced and taught.’
It seems that it’s not so much that some people simply possess wisdom and others lack it, but that our ability to reason wisely depends on a variety of external factors. ‘It is impossible to characterize thought processes attributed to wisdom without considering the role of contextual factors,’ explains Grossmann. ‘In other words, wisdom is not solely an “inner quality” but rather unfolds as a function of situations people happen to be in. Some situations are more likely to promote wisdom than others.’
Coming up with a definition of wisdom is challenging, but Grossmann and his colleagues have identified four key characteristics as part of a framework of wise reasoning. One is intellectual humility or recognition of the limits of our own knowledge, and another is appreciation of perspectives wider than the issue at hand. Sensitivity to the possibility of change in social relations is also key, along with compromise or integration of different attitudes and beliefs.
Grossmann and his colleagues have also found that one of the most reliable ways to support wisdom in our own day-to-day decisions is to look at scenarios from a third-party perspective, as though giving advice to a friend. Research suggests that when adopting a first-person viewpoint we focus on ‘the focal features of the environment’ and when we adopt a third-person, ‘observer’ viewpoint we reason more broadly and focus more on interpersonal and moral ideals such as justice and impartiality. Looking at problems from this more expansive viewpoint appears to foster cognitive processes related to wise decisions.
What are we to do, then, when confronted with situations like a disagreement with a spouse or negotiating a contract at work, that require us to take a personal stake? Grossmann argues that even when we aren’t able to change the situation, we can still evaluate these experiences from different perspectives.
For example, in one experiment that took place during the peak of a recent economic recession, graduating college seniors were asked to reflect on their job prospects. The students were instructed to imagine their career either ‘as if you were a distant observer’ or ‘before your own eyes as if you were right there’. Participants in the group assigned to the ‘distant observer’ role displayed more wisdom-related reasoning (intellectual humility and recognition of change) than did participants in the control group.
In another study, couples in long-term romantic relationships were instructed to visualize an unresolved relationship conflict either through the eyes of an outsider or from their own perspective. Participants then discussed the incident with their partner for 10 minutes, after which they wrote down their thoughts about it. Couples in the ‘other’s eyes’ condition were significantly more likely to rely on wise reasoning – recognizing others’ perspectives and searching for a compromise – compared to the couples in the egocentric condition.
‘Ego-decentering promotes greater focus on others and enables a bigger picture, conceptual view of the experience, affording recognition of intellectual humility and change,’ says Grossmann.
We might associate wisdom with intelligence or particular personality traits, but research shows only a small positive relationship between wise thinking and crystallized intelligence and the personality traits of openness and agreeableness. ‘It is remarkable how much people can vary in their wisdom from one situation to the next, and how much stronger such contextual effects are for understanding the relationship between wise judgment and its social and affective outcomes as compared to the generalized “traits”,’ Grossmann explains. ‘That is, knowing how wisely a person behaves in a given situation is more informative for understanding their emotions or likelihood to forgive [or] retaliate as compared to knowing whether the person may be wise “in general”.’
Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.
Write the correct letter in boxes 27-30 on your answer sheet.
题目关键词:the first paragraph
答案位置:第 1 段
题解:题目:作者在第 1 段表达了以下哪个观点?
A. 智慧为人类所独有。
B. 某个关于智慧的基本假设可能有误。
C. 智慧的概念是由我们从属的社会决定的。
D. 仍有很多智慧的基本特征有待发现。
本段提到真正的智慧少之又少时,是用 Although 引导的,这意味着下文要反驳这个少之又少的定论。 下文提到:实证研究(empirical research)和事实(in fact)都说明,理智并非少数人拥有的特质,只要有恰当的情境,我们大部分人都有能力做出明智的决定。这都是对“少之又少”的反驳。这个“虽 然……但是……”的反驳过程对应选项 B 中的某个假设(即“少之又少”)可能是错的,因此答案为 B。
题目关键词:Igor Grossmann, ability
答案位置:第 2 段第 1—2 行
题解:题目:关于能够做出理智决策的能力,Igor Grossmann 表达了以下哪个观点?
A. 人与人之间相差迥异。
B. 早期研究所依赖的数据不可靠。
C. 某些重大的影响被低估了。
D. 不同流派的心理学会依据自己的标准来定义它。
原文 Grossmann 提到:似乎经验、情境、文化 对智慧的影响比我们之前想象的还要大(more powerful … than previously imagined),其中“经验、情境、文化”对应选项 C 中的“某些重大的影响”,“影响比我们之前想象的还要大”对应选项 C 中的“被低估(underestimated)”。原文也提到了不同流派的心理学(cognitive, developmental, social, and personality psychology),但并未提到不同流派对影响智慧的因素定义有所不同,所以排除选项 D。
题目关键词:the third paragraph, Grossmann, level, inpidual
答案位置:第 3 段第 4—6 行
题解:题目:根据第 3 段,Grossmann 称一个人展现的智慧水平
A. 可能比自己想象的更高。
B. 可能在不同情况下各有不同。
C. 可能是由性格中的某些方面决定的。
D. 应当随着人生阅历而有所发展。
本段主要在论证第一句的智慧推理取决于一系列 的外部因素(external factors)。Grossmann 提到, 有些情境(situations)比其他情境更容易(more likely)提升智慧。也就是说,情境不同,一个人能展现的智慧水平也不同。这对应选项 B 中 的 be different in different circumstances。本题难在四个选项的主语是谁,只要理清题目考查的是 Grossmann 的观点中是什么决定了人能展现的智慧的多寡即可,因此答案为 B。
题目关键词:the fifth paragraph
答案位置:第 5 段
题解:题目:第 5 段描述了什么?
A. 尝试去做理智推理时会面临的一个困难。
B. 举了有关更容易做出理智推理的人的一个例子
C. 关于理智推理的优势的一个有争议的观点。
D. 推荐了一个能够帮助人们理智决策的策略。
在第 5 段的段首,Grossmann 和同事们发现,以第三人称视角看问题会更容易做出理智的判断。 在下文的论证过程中,作者对比了第一人称视角的缺点和第三人称视角的优势。段尾再次提出, 第三人称视角更容易做出理智的推理,即如果要 做出理智的推理,比起第一人称视角,更推荐采取第三人称视角,这是一种推荐的策略。这对应选项 D 中的 a recommended strategy。原文并未提及选项 A 中的某个问题、选项 B 中的某种人的例 子、选项 C 中的有争议的观点,因此排除。

