Practice Set 16 Test 2 (C16T2) | How To Make Wise Decisions

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 27-40, corresponding to Reading Passage 3 given below.

How to make wise decisions

Across cultures, trí tuệ has been considered one of the most revered human qualities. Although the truly wise may seem few and far between, thực nghiệm 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 experientialconflictsolelytraitdựa trên kinh nghiệm, 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 interpersonalviewpointcognitiveexceptionalthuộc về nhận thức, 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 cumulativelycontextualintegrationegocentricthuộc về ngữ cảnh 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 evaluateSensitivityunfoldsa small handful ofbộc lộ as a function of situations people happen to be in. Some situations are more likely to solelypromotegeneralizedcumulativelyđẩy mạnh, khuyến khích, phát huy 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 bộ khung of wise reasoning. One is intellectual humility or recognitioninstructedinformativescenariossự công nhận 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 impartialityinstructeda small handful ofcompromisesự thỏa hiệp 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 Sensitivityinsightscumulativelyscenariosviễn cảnh 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 stakeintegrationfactorsidealslý tưởng such as justice and impartiality. Looking at problems from this more egocentricSensitivityexpansivereveredrộng mở, bao quát viewpoint appears to foster cognitive processes related to wise decisions.

What are we to do, then, when moralconfrontedSensitivityinformativeđối mặt 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 reflectfactorsfunctionevaluateđánh giá these experiences from different perspectives.

For example, in one experiment that took place during the peak of a recent economic opennesshumilityfactorsrecessionsuy thoái kinh tế, graduating college seniors were asked to reflect on their job prospects. The students were instructeddisplayedreflectmoralhướng dẫn 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 negotiatingexceptionalinformativeassignedgiao cho, phân công 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 adoptingimpartialityunresolvedfunctionchưa được giải quyết relationship conflict either through the eyes of an outsider or from their own perspective. Participants then discussed the perspectiveretaliateappreciationincidentsự việc, sự cố 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 a small handful ofnegotiatingopennessegocentricvị kỷ 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 crystallizedtraitimpartialityintegrationkết tinh, cứng, chắc chắn 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 displayedopennessreveredjudgmentsự đánh giá 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 informativeopennessstakefostercung cấp nhiều thông tin for understanding their emotions or likelihood to forgive [or] retaliate as compared to knowing whether the person may be wise “in general”.