Wisdom is a broad construct that has multiple facets. As many have pointed out, not only the Greeks, but wisdom traditions cross-culturally, have generally identified two major approaches, phronesis and sophia (e.g., Curnow, 1999). Grossman et al.’s (this issue) Perspectival Metacognition (PMC) model is solidly within the phronesis tradition, that is, deliberation on practical choices, or qualities that one needs to have “good life”. Probably the best parts of Grossman et al.’s presentation is its emphasis morality and the recognition of the essential value of wisdom to society. As many have noted (e.g., Ardelt, 2004), the problem with a solely “practical knowledge” perspective is that a psychopath may be very knowledgeable and efficient in, say, committing genocide, but a psychopath is not an exemplar of wisdom. As Sternberg (2015) pointed out, wisdom cannot be reduced simply to intelligence, but includes moral development and self-transcendence. However, by dismissing the philosophical perspective, Grossman et al. (this issue) blithely ignored some of the most interesting aspects of wisdom. The sophia tradition focuses more on love of knowledge and personal development (Aldwin, Igarashi, & Levenson, 2019). In the psychological wisdom tradition, this has been termed self or ego transcendence (Bauer & Wayment, 2008; Levenson et al., 2005). Indeed, self-transcendence was the third or fourth characterization of wisdom by experts and it is surprising that it was given short shrift in this presentation. Grossman et al.’s (this issue) review is incomplete in that it ignores crucial work that presents alternative views. For example, the Toronto Wisdom Task force was not the first consensus effort at defining wisdom, and it is surprising that the eminent researchers in this group did not refer to the outcome of an earlier effort. In July of 2008, Dr. Judith Gl€ uck organized a workshop on gender and wisdom, which included Drs. Monika Ardelt, Irene Strasser, and the first and third authors of this commentary. The definition that we developed was published by Aldwin (2009, p. 4): Wisdom is a practice that reflects the developmental process by which individuals increase in self-knowledge, self-integration, nonattachment, self-transcendence, and compassion, as well as a deeper understanding of life. This practice involves better self-regulation and ethical choices, resulting in greater good for oneself and others. Contrast this rich definition with that of the Wisdom Task Force: “morally-grounded excellence in certain aspects of metacognition” (Grossman et al., this issue, p. 108). Grossman et al. (this issue) dismissed the more “philosophically grounded” aspects of wisdom as being too hard to measure. However, their dismissal of self-report wisdom and self-transcendence measures as being suspect to selfaggrandizement bias is a criticism that can easily be directed at all self-report measures in psychology. It ignores psychometric efforts to decrease self-report bias in measures of selftranscendence (e.g., Levenson, Jennings, Aldwin & Shiraishi, 2005). Further, Gl€ uck’s (2018) excellent review and testing of the different measures of wisdom (Gl€ uck et al., 2013) was also ignored. She found that self-transcendence measures performed as well as or better than other measures of wisdom, including performance-based ones. Further, the performancebased wisdom assessments are subject to the same critique that has been directed at Kohlberg’s (1981) coding of responses to moral dilemma vignettes–namely, what people say they would do in laboratory settings has little or no relationship to actual moral behaviors in real life (Rest, 1983). This is precisely why our previous definition referred to wisdom as a practice. Self-transcendence is not just a personality trait or a motivation, but reflects an outcome of adult development processes (see Aldwin et al., 2019). Indeed, Curnow (2011) emphasized that phronesis is learned, but sophia or self-transcendence is the result of transformation. Even while emphasizing the importance of morality, Grossmann et al. (this issue) ignored arguments that self-transcendence is at the heart of moral development (Aldwin et al., 2019; Templeton & Eccles, 2008). Self-transcendence, namely, decentering from oneself and understanding the interconnectedness of all life, forms the basis for social justice (KoltkoRivera, 2006; Maslow, 1970) and moral development (Kohlberg & Ryncarz, 1990). Thus, it is not surprising that almost all the wisdom interventions reviewed by Grossmann et al. fostered some aspect of self-transcendence, including mindfulness, self-distancing, and self-reflection. We do welcome Grossmen et al.’s calls for more research on the development of wisdom, specifically whether and how it arises through coping with stressful events, central to several major theorists (Aldwin & Levenson, 2004; Ardelt, 2005; Gl€ uck & Bluck, 2014). They correctly point out that much of the research is retrospective and thus subject to reporting bias. However, the recommended short-term

中文翻译：

---

只有一半的故事

智慧是一个广泛的结构，具有多个方面。正如许多人指出的那样，不仅是希腊人，而且跨文化的智慧传统也普遍确定了两种主要方法，phronesis 和 sophia（例如，Curnow，1999）。Grossman 等人（本期）的 Perspectival Metacognition (PMC) 模型完全符合 phronesis 传统，即对实际选择或一个人需要拥有“美好生活”所需的品质进行审议。格罗斯曼等人的演讲中最好的部分可能是它对道德的强调和对智慧对社会基本价值的认可。正如许多人所指出的（例如，Ardelt，2004），仅从“实践知识”的角度来看的问题在于，精神病患者可能知识渊博且效率很高，例如在实施种族灭绝时，但精神病患者并不是智慧的典范。正如 Sternberg (2015) 指出的那样，智慧不能简单地归结为智力，而是包括道德发展和自我超越。然而，通过驳回哲学观点，格罗斯曼等人。(本期) 漫不经心地忽略了智慧中一些最有趣的方面。索菲亚传统更注重对知识的热爱和个人发展（Aldwin、Igarashi 和 Levenson，2019 年）。在心理智慧传统中，这被称为超越自我或自我（Bauer & Wayment, 2008; Levenson et al., 2005）。事实上，自我超越是专家对智慧的第三或第四个特征，令人惊讶的是，在本次演讲中却对其置若罔闻。Grossman 等人（本期）的评论是不完整的，因为它忽略了提出不同观点的关键工作。例如，多伦多智慧工作组并不是第一个定义智慧的共识努力，令人惊讶的是，该小组的杰出研究人员并未提及早期努力的结果。2008 年 7 月，Judith Gl€ uck 博士组织了一个关于性别和智慧的研讨会，其中包括博士。Monika Ardelt、Irene Strasser 和本评论的第一和第三作者。我们制定的定义由 Aldwin (2009, p. 4) 发表：智慧是一种实践，它反映了个体在自我认识、自我整合、无依恋、自我超越和同情心方面增加的发展过程，以及作为对生活的更深刻理解。这种做法涉及更好的自我调节和道德选择，从而为自己和他人带来更大的好处。将这个丰富的定义与智慧工作组的定义进行对比：“在元认知的某些方面以道德为基础的卓越”（格罗斯曼等人，本期，第 108 页）。格罗斯曼等人。（这个问题）驳斥了智慧的更多“哲学基础”方面，因为它太难以衡量了。然而，他们将自我报告智慧和自我超越措施视为自我夸大偏见的嫌疑人而不予理会，这是一种批评，很容易针对心理学中的所有自我报告措施。它忽略了在自我超越测量中减少自我报告偏差的心理测量努力（例如，Levenson、Jennings、Aldwin 和 Shiraishi，2005）。此外，Gl€ uck (2018) 对不同智慧衡量标准（Gl€ uck et al., 2013）的出色审查和测试也被忽略了。她发现，自我超越的衡量指标与其他智慧衡量指标（包括基于绩效的衡量指标）一样好或更好。此外，基于绩效的智慧评估受到与 Kohlberg (1981) 对道德困境小插曲的反应编码相同的批评——即，人们说他们在实验室环境中会做的事情与实际的道德行为几乎没有或没有关系。现实生活（休息，1983 年）。这正是我们之前的定义将智慧称为实践的原因。自我超越不仅仅是一种人格特质或动机，而是反映了成人发展过程的结果（见 Aldwin 等，2019）。事实上，Curnow (2011) 强调 phronesis 是可以习得的，但 Sophia 或自我超越是转变的结果。即使在强调道德的重要性的同时，格罗斯曼等人。（这个问题）忽略了自我超越是道德发展核心的论点（Aldwin 等人，2019 年；邓普顿和埃克尔斯，2008 年）。自我超越，即远离自我并理解所有生命的相互联系，构成了社会正义（KoltkoRivera，2006；Maslow，1970）和道德发展（Kohlberg & Ryncarz，1990）的基础。因此，格罗斯曼等人审查的几乎所有智慧干预措施都不足为奇。培养了自我超越的某些方面，包括正念、自我疏远和自我反省。我们确实欢迎 Grossmen 等人呼吁对智慧的发展进行更多研究，特别是它是否以及如何通过应对压力事件而产生，这是几位主要理论家的核心（Aldwin & Levenson, 2004; Ardelt, 2005; Gl€ uck和布拉克，2014 年）。他们正确地指出，大部分研究都是回顾性的，因此会受到报告偏见的影响。然而，