Grossmann et al. (this issue) have proposed a common wisdom model with four major components: (1) balance of viewpoints, (2) epistemic humility, (3) context adaptability, and (4) multiple perspectives. Except for what I consider to be four crucial missing elements, I believe this is a very useful and important model. I should think that, as the model appears to be largely consistent with my own balance theory of wisdom (e.g., Sternberg, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2019c). With regard to (1) balance of viewpoints, I stated in my 1998 definition of wisdom that wisdom is sought through a balance of (a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, and (c) extrapersonal interests” (Sternberg, 1998, p. 347). With regard to (2) epistemic humility, I have stated that lack of wisdom—foolishness–occurs when people commit the “the omniscience fallacy, [which] occurs when people think that they know everything, and lose sight of the limitations of their own knowledge” (Sternberg, 2019a, p. 7; see also Sternberg, 2002). With regard to (3) context adaptability, I further defined wisdom in the 1998 definition in terms of “(a) adaptation to existing environments, (b) shaping of existing environments, and (c) selection of new environments” (Sternberg, 1998, p. 347). And with regard to (4) multiple perspectives, I said in 1998 that wisdom I achieved “through a balance among multiple... interests” (Sternberg, 1998, p. 7; see also Sternberg, 2001, 2019c), which themselves are a consequence of multiple perspectives. Because the common wisdom model is an amalgamation of many perspectives, I suspect many other wisdom researchers also will be pleased with the model, as it encompasses a fairly wide range of theories, although by no means all of them. For example, there is overlap, I believe, with the MORE model (Glueck & Bluck, 2013) and with the Ardelt (1997) model. I am pleased to see the convergence of the common model with my own balance theory and with other theories, suggesting that multiple accounts of wisdom are converging upon a single phenomenon. Oddly, I find what I believe to be four of the most important aspects of wisdom missing from the common wisdom model, although one of them is discussed several times in Grossmann et al. (this issue). The first is the service of the four elements—whether from the common model or from the balance theory—to the common good. The second is the integration of wise thinking for the long-term with thinking for the short-term. The third is the seeking of common interests, not merely viewpoints. The fourth is the infusion of positive ethical values. The authors might argue that these elements are included, somehow, implicitly or otherwise within their model without being explicitly stated, but I believe that without their being explicitly stated, they will not come to the fore when people use the common wisdom model. Without these missing links, I believe the model is incomplete. In this article, I will explain why, and also explain why I believe wisdom is also missing from many contemporary accounts of intelligence, another construct discussed in Grossmann et al. (this issue).

中文翻译：

---

缺失的环节：评论“两极分化世界中的智慧科学”

格罗斯曼等人。（本期）提出了一个共同智慧模型，它有四个主要组成部分：（1）观点的平衡，（2）认知谦逊，（3）情境适应性，以及（4）多视角。除了我认为的四个关键缺失元素之外，我相信这是一个非常有用和重要的模型。我应该认为，因为该模型似乎与我自己的智慧平衡理论基本一致（例如，Sternberg, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2019c）。关于 (1) 观点的平衡，我在 1998 年对智慧的定义中指出，智慧是通过平衡 (a) 内在、(b) 人际和 (c) 外在利益来寻求的”（Sternberg，1998，p. 347）。关于（2）认识上的谦卑，我已经说过，当人们犯下“全知谬误，[这]发生在人们认为他们无所不知，而忽略了自己知识的局限性时”（Sternberg，2019a，第 7 页；另见 Sternberg，2002）。关于（3）情境适应性，我在 1998 年的定义中进一步定义了智慧，即“（a）对现有环境的适应，（b）现有环境的塑造，以及（c）新环境的选择”（Sternberg，1998 年） ，第 347 页）。关于 (4) 多重视角，我在 1998 年说过，我“通过多种……利益之间的平衡”获得了智慧（Sternberg，1998，第 7 页；另见 Sternberg，2001，2019c），它们本身多角度的结果。因为共同智慧模型是许多观点的融合，我怀疑许多其他智慧研究人员也会对这个模型感到满意，因为它涵盖了相当广泛的理论，尽管绝不是全部。例如，我相信 MORE 模型 (Glueck & Bluck, 2013) 和 Ardelt (1997) 模型存在重叠。我很高兴看到通用模型与我自己的平衡理论和其他理论的趋同，这表明对智慧的多种解释正在趋同于一个现象。奇怪的是，我发现通用智慧模型中缺少我认为的智慧的四个最重要方面，尽管 Grossmann 等人多次讨论了其中之一。（这个问题）。第一个是为共同利益服务的四个要素——无论是来自共同模型还是来自平衡理论。二是将长远的明智思维与短期的思维相结合。三是寻求共同利益，而不仅仅是观点。四是灌输积极的伦理价值观。作者可能会争辩说，这些元素以某种方式或隐含地或以其他方式包含在他们的模型中，而没有明确说明，但我相信，如果没有明确说明，当人们使用常识模型时，它们不会脱颖而出。如果没有这些缺失的链接，我相信该模型是不完整的。在这篇文章中，我将解释为什么，并解释为什么我相信许多当代智力描述中也缺少智慧，这是格罗斯曼等人讨论的另一个结构。（这个问题）。在他们的模型中隐含或以其他方式没有明确说明，但我相信如果没有明确说明，当人们使用共同智慧模型时，它们不会脱颖而出。如果没有这些缺失的链接，我相信该模型是不完整的。在这篇文章中，我将解释为什么，并解释为什么我相信许多当代智力描述中也缺少智慧，这是格罗斯曼等人讨论的另一个结构。（这个问题）。在他们的模型中隐含或以其他方式没有明确说明，但我相信如果没有明确说明，当人们使用共同智慧模型时，它们不会脱颖而出。如果没有这些缺失的链接，我相信该模型是不完整的。在这篇文章中，我将解释为什么，并解释为什么我相信许多当代智力描述中也缺少智慧，这是格罗斯曼等人讨论的另一个结构。（这个问题）。Grossmann 等人讨论的另一种结构。（这个问题）。Grossmann 等人讨论的另一种结构。（这个问题）。