CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Wisdom

deep understanding or knowledge of a subject

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 16, 2026
Entity authorityQ799 ↗
Source-derived summary

Wisdom, also known as sapience, is defined by psychologists as a combination of "wit and virtue," the ability to apply expert tacit and experiential knowledge, balancing intrapersonal, interpersonal and institutional interests, to deal with complex questions of life and attain a common good. Wisdom can be viewed as a stable personality trait, but also as context-bound process, meaning that a person in some contexts behaves wisely, but in other contexts does not. Wisdom can also be viewed as influenced and determined by sociocultural norms and traditions. And wisdom can be viewed solely as wise behaviour, describing actions which lead to "an altruistic outcome by creatively and successfully solving problems."

Throughout history, wisdom has been regarded as a key virtue in religion and philosophy. Religiously, wisdom is an important element in the Biblical wisdom-tradition - often contrasting human knowledge with divine omniscience - which was further developed in Christianity and Islam. In Mahayana Buddhism, prajna (insight, "wisdom") is wedded to karuṇā, compassion, as icographically represented in yab-yum. Philosophically, wisdom has been explored by thinkers from Ancient Greece to modern times, with Greek (Plato) making a distinction between sophia, philosophical and contemplative wisdom regarding the divine order of existence; phronesis, practical wisdom; and episteme, formal or scientific knowledge.

Psychologists have researched wisdom since the late 1970s, starting with exploring folk conceptions of wisdom, and subsequently developing explicit-formal theories of wisdom. Theories that regard wisdom as a developmental cognitive and personal trait hark back to Erik Eriksons theory of stages of psychosocial development, and post-formal stages added to Jean Piagets theory of cognitive development. Explicit-formal theories include Robert J. Sternbergs Balance Theory of Wisdom, which explores the relation between intelligence, creativity, and wisdom, and sees wisdom as "the value-laden application of tacit knowledge to attain a common good"; and Paul Baltes' Berlin Wisdom Paradigm, which sees wisdom as a combination of "excellence in mind and virtue" and "an expert knowledge system dealing with the conduct and understanding of life." Psychological definitions include two common components, namely wit and virtue: an emphasis on cognition, meaning, and affect, and a concern for human welfare.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Wisdom” as deep understanding or knowledge of a subject. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Wisdom, deep and understanding.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current 349-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Wisdom, deep and understanding providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Wisdom”, the useful work is to connect “deep understanding or knowledge of a subject” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 16, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q799. The Library of Congress control number is sh85147107. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Wisdom”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Wisdom primary sources, Wisdom archive and Wisdom research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Wisdom”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Wisdom” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.