• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Why Wisdom Doesn't Work as Well as We Think It Does

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
32,220
Points
1,160
Word to the wise.... don't pull out this article and show it to the RSM next time he/she nails you for doing something stoopid ;)

Why Wisdom Doesn't Work as Well as We Think It Does

Older people make fewer bad choices. But not simply because they're wiser.

We associate wisdom with advanced age. When we think of someone who is wise, an image of white hair and wrinkles likely comes to mind. Most of us assume that gaining wisdom is like picking up stones on a path: the longer you’re on the path, the more stones you’ll collect. But, as the Roman philosopher Seneca once wrote, “So you must not think a person has lived long because she has white hair and wrinkles: she has not lived long, just existed long.”

There are two things that motivate our assumptions about wisdom and age: (1) Older people tend to make fewer stupid mistakes, and (2) Older people often know the best course of action in a given situation. It’s a reasonable inference, then, that wisdom accumulates as we get older. But I think there’s an alternative explanation at play here, which we might consider in the light of what we know about human decision-making.

There’s a longstanding vein of research in psychology that studies two contrasting strategies for decision-making: plans and habits. Navigation provides a classic example of how these strategies differ. If you’re driving somewhere for the first time—to a new restaurant, say—then you’ll need a plan to get there. You will need to know whether to turn left or right at a given intersection, because you don’t already have that information stored away in your head. You just haven’t encountered it. On the other hand, you don’t need a plan when you’re going somewhere familiar—for instance, the supermarket—because the sequence of steps that will take you there are stored as a habit. You don’t have to think about them.

There’s a tradeoff between these two strategies. Habits are easy to implement, but they’re not very flexible. You can listen to a podcast while walking to the store, but if you find that the street is blocked by a new construction site, you’ll have to take out your headphones and think about an alternate route. Such a plan allows you to flexibly handle new situations, but they take a lot more focus and attention to engage with. Habits are useful when you’re in a familiar situation, but new territory requires a plan.
Neuroscientists Hillary Raab and Catherine Hartley recently surveyed how our use of plans and habits changes over the course of our lives. What the research suggests is that we tend to rely more on plans when we’re younger, and habits when we’re older. This makes sense. An infant can’t use habits to make decisions, because any situation she’s in will be a new one. As we build up a store of familiar situations, the more we can rely on habits. The older you are, the more likely your behavior is based on tried-and-true habits than fresh planning. This observation, I think, is neither positive or negative on the face of it—just an empirical trend in the research.

But what does this tell us about wisdom? Well, for one thing, it suggests that wisdom is interactive, not static: it is a relationship between a person and their surroundings. The reason that wisdom seems to flow so effortlessly from well-seasoned minds is that they have a store of habitual information about how to act in a given situation. And the thing about habits is that you don’t know why they work, just that they do. This is, in part, what separates wisdom from knowledge. Wisdom seems mysterious because it’s inexplicable, predicated upon life experience instead of logical premises. This gives us something of an explanation for why seemingly wiser people can intuit the best course of action.

But it also makes an unsettling prediction: if they were put in a new situation, with which they had no familiarity, they wouldn’t make any better decisions than would someone who is still enthralled in the naive fits of youth. Likewise with mistakes. Mature people make fewer dumb mistakes because they’ve grown adept at not making silly decisions in the situations they frequently encounter. But put them in a new situation and they’re just as likely to screw up as anyone else. The problem here is that there’s a confound with our notion wisdom: a person’s likelihood of encountering a new situation. Twenty-year-olds encounter way more new situations than do seventy-year-olds. If you controlled for the familiarity of the situation—giving the different age groups the same number of unfamiliar encounters—then they’d probably make the same number of mistakes. Younger people might even make fewer mistakes, because they’ve got a higher propensity for thinking on their feet, for coming up with fresh plans. This bears out in reality too—older, seemingly wiser people also make stupid decisions when given the opportunity to do so.

I think this should give us a bit of pause about our conventional notion of wisdom. It is more much situation-dependent we might otherwise think. While this doesn’t nullify the validity of insights from wise elders, it does imply some constraints on how we should expect such knowledge will apply. While wisdom gives you expertise within a particular environment, it doesn’t mean that you’ll be able to generalize that to new experiences. It's not that we necessarily get wiser as we get older, but we put ourselves in fewer situations where we are likely to make mistakes.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/friendly-interest/201902/why-wisdom-doesnt-work-well-we-think-it-does?collection=1134340



 
daftandbarmy said:
It's not that we necessarily get wiser as we get older, but we put ourselves in fewer situations where we are likely to make mistakes.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/friendly-interest/201902/why-wisdom-doesnt-work-well-we-think-it-does?collection=1134340

Personally, I don't think it such a bad idea if people in public safety occupations eg: airline pilots, retire at a younger age.



 
mariomike said:
Personally, I don't think it such a bad idea if people in public safety occupations eg: airline pilots, retire at a younger age.
Worst case, a senile pilot is likely to only kill a few hundred people.  I'd rather see an age cap on politicians, so we're not all inflicted with the fall out from their dementia.
[No names]
 
Journeyman said:
I'd rather see an age cap on politicians, so we're not all inflicted with the fall out from their dementia.
[No names]

Certainly any politician with nuclear weapons.

 
When I served with my Law Society's complaints investigation committee I was told an interesting statistics on professional negligence by lawyers.

In general, lawyers in their first two years of practice were rarely negligent. The rate picked up in the 3rd to 10th year of practice and then peaked dramatically during their 11th to 20th year of practice. Thereafter the negligence rate declined dramatically to where after 30 years it was just above the rate of a new lawyer and by 40 years of practice close to nil.

The fact that brand new lawyers were rarely negligent has much to do with the fact that they were mostly under strict supervision or mentoring. The rate rose during the periods when they moved on to minimal or low supervision while working flat out to build a practice and reputation and were encountering novel cases. It dropped again as they became much more experienced and much of what they did was routine to them.

:cheers:
 
Generally in the civy world including private pilots, it's the new ones that get killed and the very experienced. New people don't realize when a dangerous situation is forming. After awhile one realizes danger and avoids it. However once one has become a expert at a thing, you may believe that your superior skills will allow you to get close to the edge without consequence and make a choice that a lesser experienced person has learned to avoid. I watched a very good glider pilot die this way, when he decided to attempt a circuit rather than land off field when the winch did not work properly and he spun in on his first turn.

The old adage: "Use your superior wisdom to avoid having to use your superior skills" still holds true. 
 
Colin P said:
Generally in the civy world including private pilots, it's the new ones that get killed and the very experienced.

Early retirement of commercial airline pilots, and the five other Public Safety Occupations ( PSO ), is to protect the public,

Government of Canada

A public safety occupation is defined as the occupation of a firefighter, police officer, corrections officer, air traffic controller, commercial airline pilot, or paramedic. The definition is used for the purpose of the early retirement reduction rules under paragraph 8503(3)(c) of the Regulations.
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/registered-plans-administrators/registered-plans-directorate-technical-manual.html#pblcsftccptn




 
FJAG said:
In general, lawyers in their first two years of practice were rarely negligent. ….the negligence rate declined dramatically to where after 30 years it was just above the rate of a new lawyer and by 40 years of practice close to nil.
Back when I cared about such stats, I saw an opposite bell curve.  There were two particular skydiving centres in Canada -- one in Ontario and one in Alberta -- that had really noticeable spikes in parachute deaths;  the main difference is that one was killing new students and one was featured "D licenced" jumpers.
 
Journeyman said:
Back when I cared about such stats, I saw an opposite bell curve.  There were two particular skydiving centres in Canada -- one in Ontario and one in Alberta -- that had really noticeable spikes in parachute deaths;  the main difference is that one was killing new students and one was featured "D licenced" jumpers.

that's a downer...
 
I'll hide this article in here....  ;D

Flatten the Curve of Armchair Epidemiology


Everyone has seen messages telling you we must “act today or people will die,” COVID-19 is basically just the flu," and/or that “flattening the curve is a deadly delusion.”

Unfortunately, all of the above are signs of DKE-19, a highly contagious illness threatening the response against COVID-19. Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) is a phenomenon where people lack the ability to understand their lack of ability. While strains of DKE typically circulate seasonally, a new and more virulent strain called DKE-19 is now reaching pandemic proportions.

jCAvIswk


DKE-19 is in the same family of misinformation viruses ...transmitted person-to-person through a variety of means, including listening to/repeating bullshit while on the toilet (“feco-aural transmission”).

Several cases of second-hand craniofacial injury have been reported, related to collisions between desks and actual experts’ heads.


Things you can do to flatten the curve

- Wash your phone for at least 20 seconds fully immersed in soapy water

- 6 ft of social media distancing

- Check the qualifications of authors BEFORE sharing

- Listen to people who know what they are talking about
More at LINK    :whistle:




 
The first thing that sprang to mind reading that was Douglas Adams followed by a frantic search for a clean presentable towel.
 
Back
Top