Actually, no, judgement calls like whether or not to talk to dangerous people is within the purview of Wisdom. Reckless behavior typically denotes a lower Wisdom score.
Intelligence would deal more with knowing which bandit group it is, what their hand signs or other customs are, etc.
@Grammarsalad, with your permission, I'd like to keep using the same path; some people quote Einstein, I summon Kant - that pious priest of awakening.
With the passing of a colleague, the great thinker would have said that being wise and humain at the same time is too much for mere mortals. For the moral law "entirely excludes the influence of self-love; everything that enters into self-love belongs to inclination, and all inclination rests on feelings; now whatever checks our self-conceit in our own judgement humiliates; therefore the moral law inevitably humbles every man when he compares with it the physical propensities of his nature".
If we agree that 'every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.', than Socrates was right - 'No one errs willingly'.
I believe this lead to what is called today 'the banality of evil'; I agree inasmuch as I'm failing to see evil in nature. You won't find much else there if you take desire from men.
But what can be called good 'without qualification'? You already know the answer, it's called good will. The gifts of nature(intelligence, physical power etc.) and fortune(riches, well-being etc.) can easily be used with evil intent 'if there is not a good will to correct the influence of these on the mind'.
The only source of meaning and power against the distractions of materialism it's called idealism. It's maxim - 'the soul needs everlasting ailment'; it's expression - philosophy. For philosophy consists in knowing your limits, "a negation cannot be cogitated as determined, without cogitating at the same time the opposite affirmation. The man born blind has not the least notion of darkness, because he has none of light; the ignorant man has no conception of his ignorance, because he has no conception of knowledge etc."
There is only one philosophy and it's called idealism - forever in incipient stage. An Ideal is the pure object of our strivings. Better yet, "The ideal is the prototype(prototypon) of all things, which, as defective copies (ectypa), receive from it the material of their possibility, and approximate to it more or less, though it is impossible that they can ever attain to its perfection."
It's safe to say this what the ancient Greeks had in mind. No one else besides Zeus is to be called σοφός. Man is to become φιλόσοφος, just like only a man can become a Buddha.
And the path is the greatest paradox of them all - 'You must become a slave to philosophy if you would gain true freedom'
But i fear we must abandon Kant's metaethics or risk going off topic. It would be interesting to do a study to see if wisdom and a tendency to lawful good covary (among 'official npc’s I suppose--ultimately, we must consult the canon to determine the content--much like religion actually). But i/we digress. This is fiction and we must go down the rabbit hole to a nonsensical world where Kant was only partially right.
In this world the good is a function and thus multiply- realizable; here kantian ethics and utilitarianism (or some combination) are equally rational (as are ethical egoism and nihilism). The wise mind must be able to assert that passion is the master and reason only the slave; and the existence of chaos and a metaphysical reality attests to this pretend truth. That is a requirement of this impossible world we call d and d.
Long ago, i played a character who, at his death, had a 21 Wis and a 3 Int. He did some really stupid things over the course of his career, but learned from his mistakes & never repeated a mistake.
Long ago, i played a character who, at his death, had a 21 Wis and a 3 Int. He did some really stupid things over the course of his career, but learned from his mistakes & never repeated a mistake.
That would be a serious role playing challenge! Sounds like fun.
@atcDave: this from an earlier discussion...(I mis-printed in my last post...Larry only had a 20 Wis) he was a hoot to play, quite memorable, & i was very unhappy when a party-member tpk'd the party...
Larry of St. Cuthbert...a Cleric who, when he died, had these stats... Str 21 (Belt of Giant Str), Con 18, Dex 7, Int 3, Wis 20, Chr 13 he was 6'7" & weighed 375 pounds used the Player's Option rules from 2nd ed; Larry couldn't turn undead, fought as a Fighter w/ 2 clubs, was wise enough to know he was stupid, & never in 11 levels cast a single healing spell in combat...he considered himself the fist of St. Cuthbert..."Larry turn undead with clubs!"; he never referred to himself in the 1st person... despite having Int 3 & being illiterate, he could write his first name; through game play, his Int went to 4, at which point he could write his last name as well (Bittlestiffender)...he later lost his added point of Int & forgot how to write his last name... when introducing himself, he made an L (Larry) with his thumb & forefinger & placed them on his forehead... Larry was a brutish fighter who dealt loads of damage & could take a pounding (d10 hp)...his co-adventurers had the greatest respect for his strength, honour, & constancy (LN alignment); on the rare occurrences he chose to speak up, everyone listened...
had a party member not set off a huge burst of Positive Energy whilst we trekked through the Negative Material Plane....
An intelligent person would be able to deduce that cutting the red wire instead of the blue wire would defuse the bomb through direct observation of the bomb and it's inner workings. They would be able determine the most logical construction of the bomb based on the mechanics of the thing.
A wise person would be able to determine that cutting the red wire is the most probable way of defusing the bomb because they understand the philosophy of bomb making. They understand the way that the bomb makers think and the philosophy of bomb making in general.
Both would arrive at the same answer (i.e. the correct one) but one would be logical about it and the other would be philosophical about it.
Actually, no, judgement calls like whether or not to talk to dangerous people is within the purview of Wisdom. Reckless behavior typically denotes a lower Wisdom score.
Intelligence would deal more with knowing which bandit group it is, what their hand signs or other customs are, etc.
I was more thinking on the lines of general reasoning... Like the character can't figure out why the group of people are looking at the party and are fully armed...
As others have said, intelligence determines the strength of mundane mental faculties (calculation, memorization, problem-solving). It can be proven in the here and now because it's really just about the handling of information. Wisdom governs the more abstract abilities of prediction, correlation and extrapolation. Wisdom is really a cosmic thing, it's a measure of how well a character understands the narrative they're a part of and the ultimate consequences of events in that scheme.
Put another way, you can have an extremely intelligent evil character, someone who can exploit facts perfectly to get what he wants. However, wisdom has to do with purpose and consequence on a larger scale. Because there's an implicit criticism in the definition of 'evil' (i.e. it doesn't end well), evil can never be wise.
Put yet another way, if you ask both an intelligent man and a wise woman to explain the state of things, they will both give 'accurate' accounts, but the man's will be true and the woman's will be useful to you.
Although I agree philosophically Sparrowhawk; the problem is, as a game mechanic, it IS possible to be an evil wise person. I liked the old Gamma World game (late 1970s) where the term "Mental Strength" was used instead. For many years I even used that term in my AD&D game. It seems more apt.
You're right from a game play perspective, Dave, certainly. I was just mentioning it from an RP perspective like the op asked.
Also, it's been said before but an 'evil' game protagonist is an exception to the rule in the sense that they exist outside the narrative structure. They aren't held morally accountable the same way a villain is, because the universe exists to serve them. So wisdom (and possibly charisma) might be seen as a stat which has a different meaning for the protagonist than it does for an npc.
My Intelligence and Charisma would have me study your (many) words carefully, appreciate your mastery of Kant, and then attempt to impress you with some witty statements or the other, or perhaps by some longwinded bloviation that might gain me admittance to your elite club of the Intelligent.
My Wisdom looks at your (many) words, and perceives clear obfuscation, superciliousness, vanity, circumlocution, and, well, ummm...
My Charisma tells me that I gain nothing by insulting you, or by trying to call you out on your posting behavior as perceived by both my Intelligence and my Wisdom. Although, I really want to say, "Just come right out and say clearly what you want to say, on your own authority, and stop hiding behind your philosophers."
Multisyllabic bloviating is a game; some people like to play, and some don't. I must admit, that sometimes I am one that does enjoy the game of hiding my meaning in long walls of text or circumlocution and literary references, with clever allusions and alliterations, because I *do* enjoy the sound of my own voice!
But, if you actually want to share True Insight with anybody, then clarity, brevity, and "to-the-pointness" wins the day.
My whole Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma, which is greater than the sum of its parts, has given me a level of awareness of Humanity that allows me to laugh, shake my head, and feel great amusement, or even joy, at my chance to interact with people who obsess so about things like "Intelligence", "Wisdom", or "Charisma", and to apply their True Selves to becoming Enlightened by wrestling with Samsara.
I believe that short statements are more effective tools for the aspiring Boddhisatva than are the long-winded speeches and walls of text of the philosophers of the West. Such as:
"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."
"If you ever meet the Buddha and me, kill us!"
So then, in my best moments, my Wisdom tells me that, the shorter, more clear, and to the point the writing, using the most common vocabulary and the simplest sentence structures possible, the more good and the more insight with the most people can be shared.
In my weaker moments, I delight in using my Ego Intellect with its massive multisyllabic vocabulary and vast repertoire of memorized statements and ideas from philosophers and artists and thinkers from all of human history, to construct sentences the complexity of which would baffle the Sphinx.
So, here is a related question to the thread topic: I have shown you in the above essay, the three elements of Intelligence, Wisdom, and now, Charisma. Which is which, and how important is each?
When I decided just now to use my Intelligence to bloviate, obfuscate, and circumlocute, to amuse myself, just because I can, is that because of low Intelligence, low Wisdom, low Charisma, or a combination? Or, did I write this because I have had quite a few vodka cocktails, which are impairing me in all three attributes? And, if it's the vodka speaking to you presently, which of my Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma is it impairing the most?
And, when I choose not to engage in such silliness, is that because I have a redeemingly high Wisdom, a redeemingly high Charisma, or a combination of both?
He could use simpler words, but, as he said, he's summoning Kant. It is a requirement--perhaps decreed by Kant himself--that all German Philosophers must obfuscate.
But he knows what he's talking about as far as I can tell. He's actually answering the question as a (especially intelligent) Paladin (that happened to read Kant or a Kant-like philosopher--Plato's in there too) might; all in character*, if you will.
For Kant freedom of the will has nothing to do with a 'forked path'. That is, it is not the ability to 'do, or do not.' It is the capacity to bind ourselves to moral law despite our (generally selfish) whimsical inclinations; also important and relevant is that it is discovered analytically (by thinking rather than scientific testing.) This is where his conception of Wisdom (as I understand it) comes in: it is this capacity to discover (and bind oneself to) these Universal Principals.
The problem I have with this is that Kantian metaphysics couldn't describe D&D--If wisdom generally leads one to freedom and freedom is acting (something like)a Lawful Good person, then most wise characters should be Lawful Good; any other alignment is irrational. It's like knowing that 1+1=2 but preferring to believe that it's 3 anyway.
@Grammarsalad, of course. In a less silly mood, I enjoy playing with philosophy as well. I was just teasing, really. I didn't mean that I necessarily disagree with Kant or that quoting Kant would not add something to the discussion.
I also admitted that I was drinking when I posted it. This morning, I considered whether I should be embarrassed to have admitted that, and perhaps that I should delete the post.
But on more sober consideration and reflection, I believe that it actually does bring up some interesting points that are germane to the discussion. I raised the question, "which of my real life ability statistics are impaired, and exactly what effect is that having?"
One obvious answer is that drinking alcohol lowers all of your stats significantly. I think perhaps that the wisdom score was the most lowered, though. With my full wisdom ability, I likely would have thought twice about posting an essay that might embarrass me in front of friends, or cause offense, and then not posted it at all.
I probably also could have made my main point much, much more clear if I hadn't been feeling so playful and silly. I really didn't need to tag anybody or to accuse Kant and the philosophers of being deliberately obtuse (although I think they kind of are).
The main point was that Intelligence is associated with, and possibly even identical to, the psychological Ego.
Wisdom is closely connected to spirituality and intuition, even meditation and mysticism.
The intelligent Ego is the part of your mind that keeps your body alive, and is in charge of the survival of the organism. It analyzes and breaks things down into manageable, useable parts.
The wise Self is the part of your mind that connects infinite parts together into wholes that are mysteriously greater than the sums of the parts. It searches for and perceives meaning that transcends that which can be understood or grasped by the intelligent Ego.
So, I'm smiling again as I try to write about it. I see a humorous irony that I am falling into the same trap I accused the philosophers of falling into, that is, using so many words that clarity is lost. "The Tao that can be spoken is not the Tao."
I also injected Charisma into the discussion. The charismatic Leader, Teacher, or Parent is the part of your mind that relates what is known by the Ego or the Self to other people effectively. It is assisted by but not determined by physical attractiveness, in that it is human nature to respond to and be persuaded by perceived physical beauty. We know that from studies where babies are shown pictures of attractive and unattractive faces; they smile at the pretty ones, and fuss or even start to cry at the ugly ones.
But that is only one component of a high Charisma, and it is not sufficient by itself. And, it is possible for a great personality to transcend an unattractive visage through sheer personal magnetism and force of will, thus becoming a great persuader, salesperson, politician, teacher, or leader. It is also possible for a very physically beautiful person to be so abusive towards others and narcissistic, that their final Charisma is actually extremely low, causing reaction penalties in others every time they open their mouths.
I like to call the combined Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma the "mental" scores, and the combined Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution the "physical" scores. The D&D attribute scores give us a fairly clear mind/body polarity, and using the "mental" scores, we can also develop a psychodynamic theory of personality that resembles but is not quite the same as Freud's.
(looks down) Looks like I'm doing it too! :P No cure for the philosophy bug.
Philosophers seem deliberately obtuse because their subject matter is much more complicated than our minds allow us to see.
A great philosopher once said that we should simplify as much as possible, but we should not simplify too much as we risk losing sight of our subject.
But what do you do when you discover that something apparently "simple"is, in fact, so tremendously complicated that you have to make up your own terms because you don't even have the language to talk about it? What if that thing is centrally important to the human endeavor like morality, knowledge, religion, meaning, value, etc?
a philosophers (thankless job is to remind us that the world is not as simple as we take it to be in the hope that we will look, really look, ourselves. it is a battle against the stronger part of human nature.
Aristotle was only partially right when he said man is a rational animal. Man has the capacity for rationality but he is a tribal/social/symbolic animal as well: I am what I am because the people around me are what they are; they are what they are because the people around them are what they are, etc. This is difficult to see unless one thinks honestly about what a different person they might be if one existed, say, as part of a remote cannibalistic tribe; a soldier in Nazi concentration camp; an aristocrat in the Roman Empire, etc.
We live a world away from (most?) other creatures--a world of (admittedly useful) symbols that we can't help but reify--socialization is at least partially a process of internalization and acceptance of a set of hypotheses that we instinctively believe mirror of the 'world as it is'. We all are the lucky ones that happened to be born in the one civilization that managed to carve nature at her joints! Phew!
There is more, and Kant is very helpful here. We will accept a distinction between the 'physical' and 'mental' perhaps partially because of Homer. But Kant would say that we must accept them--antimonious* as they are!--as necessary presuppositions of perception and agency respectively. Whatever the case, that we must perceive the world in this way does not mean that the world is this way; such thinking leads to contradiction and irreconcilable paradox as any critique of classical dualism will show.
What does this show us? Well, not much. I'd need a few thousand more words*. But, if I was to make a serious study of this, I'd want to know first if there is something like "wisdom" that can be distinguished from some other thing called "intelligence" (and perhaps "charisma"). I like that you referenced an empirical study but it should be noted that scientists make tons of necessary assumptions in their work. For example, they have a tendency to define 'beautiful' as 'symmetrical' and 'intelligent' as a score on an IQ test. They--and science journalists--also have an irritating tendency to report their interpretations rather than their findings. I personally have read a lot on intelligence and rationality and I'm not convinced that it exists as a stable trait. Heh, that's an interpretation! Well, it's also 4:20 in the morning and I've lost my point.
* This is why it is impossible to say some important things using simple, pithy statements. I can use the word 'antimonious' in a single word or I can describe it in a sixteen foot wall of text. There is no easy way out of the cave!
Well, since the original poster was, if I understand him or her correctly, asking for advice about how to roleplay Intelligence and Wisdom in a D&D game, we can probably use some oversimplification just to make up fun game rules.
We philosophers can't seem to resist complexifying everything we experience. We take things that were probably just fine by themselves, and analyze them to death. I think we can't help ourselves. It's just the nature of our minds.
If I were to roleplay a D&D character with this trait, I'd probably exaggerate it into a comical character, and have him drone on and on about stuff, using multisyllabic, abstract vocabulary, and without saying anything useful. We actually see characters like this in good fantasy and science fiction - for example, Mr. Spock from Star Trek, both Daniel Jackson and Samantha Carter from Stargate, and Dr. Rodney McKay in Stargate:Atlantis, just to name a few. They can be scientists, doctors, or any kind of scholar. They usually have a foil who constantly calls them out on their lack of wisdom in their rantings - a Dr. McCoy, a Colonel O'Neil, or a Colonel Shephard, in my examples.
So, the answer I am thinking to the OP is that, if you want to roleplay high Intelligence with low Wisdom, look at the performances of the actors who play those kinds of characters. The foils to those characters are usually playing medium or high wisdom but with average or low intelligence.
Another way to look at it is that a character's Intelligence score governs his or her mathematical acumen, vocabulary and word useage, ability with abstract symbols and diagrams, and theoretical knowledge.
A character's Wisdom score governs his or her ability to apply whatever talents that character may have to pragmatic, real-world, empirical, daily life. Wise characters in stories are usually the guides, mentors and teachers to the heroes, and/or the foil to the inevitable "intelligent fool" character in the same story. They play the part of "voice of reason" when tempers flare and their parties are arguing. They often have the flash of insight that leads to resolution of the story conflict, saying one simple line that puts all the other characters on track. They can either be almost as intelligent as the "intelligent fool" characters, or sometimes, they may have very low intelligence, but prone to "out of the mouths of babes" type flashes of brilliant insight into the story resolution.
Comments
Actually, no, judgement calls like whether or not to talk to dangerous people is within the purview of Wisdom. Reckless behavior typically denotes a lower Wisdom score.
Intelligence would deal more with knowing which bandit group it is, what their hand signs or other customs are, etc.
With the passing of a colleague, the great thinker would have said that being wise and humain at the same time is too much for mere mortals. For the moral law "entirely excludes the influence of self-love; everything that enters into self-love belongs to inclination, and all inclination rests on feelings; now whatever checks our self-conceit in our own judgement humiliates; therefore the moral law inevitably humbles every man when he compares with it the physical propensities of his nature".
If we agree that 'every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.', than Socrates was right - 'No one errs willingly'.
I believe this lead to what is called today 'the banality of evil'; I agree inasmuch as I'm failing to see evil in nature. You won't find much else there if you take desire from men.
But what can be called good 'without qualification'? You already know the answer, it's called good will. The gifts of nature(intelligence, physical power etc.) and fortune(riches, well-being etc.) can easily be used with evil intent 'if there is not a good will to correct the influence of these on the mind'.
The only source of meaning and power against the distractions of materialism it's called idealism. It's maxim - 'the soul needs everlasting ailment'; it's expression - philosophy. For philosophy consists in knowing your limits, "a negation cannot be cogitated as determined, without cogitating at the same time the opposite affirmation. The man born blind has not the least notion of darkness, because he has none of light; the ignorant man has no conception of his ignorance, because he has no conception of knowledge etc."
There is only one philosophy and it's called idealism - forever in incipient stage. An Ideal is the pure object of our strivings. Better yet, "The ideal is the prototype(prototypon) of all things, which, as defective copies (ectypa), receive from it the material of their possibility, and approximate to it more or less, though it is impossible that they can ever attain to its perfection."
It's safe to say this what the ancient Greeks had in mind. No one else besides Zeus is to be called σοφός. Man is to become φιλόσοφος, just like only a man can become a Buddha.
And the path is the greatest paradox of them all -
'You must become a slave to philosophy if you would gain true freedom'
But i fear we must abandon Kant's metaethics or risk going off topic. It would be interesting to do a study to see if wisdom and a tendency to lawful good covary (among 'official npc’s I suppose--ultimately, we must consult the canon to determine the content--much like religion actually). But i/we digress. This is fiction and we must go down the rabbit hole to a nonsensical world where Kant was only partially right.
In this world the good is a function and thus multiply- realizable; here kantian ethics and utilitarianism (or some combination) are equally rational (as are ethical egoism and nihilism). The wise mind must be able to assert that passion is the master and reason only the slave; and the existence of chaos and a metaphysical reality attests to this pretend truth. That is a requirement of this impossible world we call d and d.
He did some really stupid things over the course of his career, but learned from his mistakes & never repeated a mistake.
this from an earlier discussion...(I mis-printed in my last post...Larry only had a 20 Wis)
he was a hoot to play, quite memorable, & i was very unhappy when a party-member tpk'd the party...
Larry of St. Cuthbert...a Cleric who, when he died, had these stats...
Str 21 (Belt of Giant Str), Con 18, Dex 7, Int 3, Wis 20, Chr 13
he was 6'7" & weighed 375 pounds
used the Player's Option rules from 2nd ed; Larry couldn't turn undead, fought as a Fighter w/ 2 clubs, was wise enough to know he was stupid, & never in 11 levels cast a single healing spell in combat...he considered himself the fist of St. Cuthbert..."Larry turn undead with clubs!"; he never referred to himself in the 1st person...
despite having Int 3 & being illiterate, he could write his first name; through game play, his Int went to 4, at which point he could write his last name as well (Bittlestiffender)...he later lost his added point of Int & forgot how to write his last name...
when introducing himself, he made an L (Larry) with his thumb & forefinger & placed them on his forehead...
Larry was a brutish fighter who dealt loads of damage & could take a pounding (d10 hp)...his co-adventurers had the greatest respect for his strength, honour, & constancy (LN alignment); on the rare occurrences he chose to speak up, everyone listened...
had a party member not set off a huge burst of Positive Energy whilst we trekked through the Negative Material Plane....
An intelligent person would be able to deduce that cutting the red wire instead of the blue wire would defuse the bomb through direct observation of the bomb and it's inner workings. They would be able determine the most logical construction of the bomb based on the mechanics of the thing.
A wise person would be able to determine that cutting the red wire is the most probable way of defusing the bomb because they understand the philosophy of bomb making. They understand the way that the bomb makers think and the philosophy of bomb making in general.
Both would arrive at the same answer (i.e. the correct one) but one would be logical about it and the other would be philosophical about it.
All in my opinion.
Put another way, you can have an extremely intelligent evil character, someone who can exploit facts perfectly to get what he wants. However, wisdom has to do with purpose and consequence on a larger scale. Because there's an implicit criticism in the definition of 'evil' (i.e. it doesn't end well), evil can never be wise.
Put yet another way, if you ask both an intelligent man and a wise woman to explain the state of things, they will both give 'accurate' accounts, but the man's will be true and the woman's will be useful to you.
I liked the old Gamma World game (late 1970s) where the term "Mental Strength" was used instead. For many years I even used that term in my AD&D game. It seems more apt.
Also, it's been said before but an 'evil' game protagonist is an exception to the rule in the sense that they exist outside the narrative structure. They aren't held morally accountable the same way a villain is, because the universe exists to serve them. So wisdom (and possibly charisma) might be seen as a stat which has a different meaning for the protagonist than it does for an npc.
My Intelligence and Charisma would have me study your (many) words carefully, appreciate your mastery of Kant, and then attempt to impress you with some witty statements or the other, or perhaps by some longwinded bloviation that might gain me admittance to your elite club of the Intelligent.
My Wisdom looks at your (many) words, and perceives clear obfuscation, superciliousness, vanity, circumlocution, and, well, ummm...
My Charisma tells me that I gain nothing by insulting you, or by trying to call you out on your posting behavior as perceived by both my Intelligence and my Wisdom. Although, I really want to say, "Just come right out and say clearly what you want to say, on your own authority, and stop hiding behind your philosophers."
Multisyllabic bloviating is a game; some people like to play, and some don't. I must admit, that sometimes I am one that does enjoy the game of hiding my meaning in long walls of text or circumlocution and literary references, with clever allusions and alliterations, because I *do* enjoy the sound of my own voice!
But, if you actually want to share True Insight with anybody, then clarity, brevity, and "to-the-pointness" wins the day.
My whole Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma, which is greater than the sum of its parts, has given me a level of awareness of Humanity that allows me to laugh, shake my head, and feel great amusement, or even joy, at my chance to interact with people who obsess so about things like "Intelligence", "Wisdom", or "Charisma", and to apply their True Selves to becoming Enlightened by wrestling with Samsara.
I believe that short statements are more effective tools for the aspiring Boddhisatva than are the long-winded speeches and walls of text of the philosophers of the West. Such as:
"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."
"If you ever meet the Buddha and me, kill us!"
So then, in my best moments, my Wisdom tells me that, the shorter, more clear, and to the point the writing, using the most common vocabulary and the simplest sentence structures possible, the more good and the more insight with the most people can be shared.
In my weaker moments, I delight in using my Ego Intellect with its massive multisyllabic vocabulary and vast repertoire of memorized statements and ideas from philosophers and artists and thinkers from all of human history, to construct sentences the complexity of which would baffle the Sphinx.
So, here is a related question to the thread topic: I have shown you in the above essay, the three elements of Intelligence, Wisdom, and now, Charisma. Which is which, and how important is each?
When I decided just now to use my Intelligence to bloviate, obfuscate, and circumlocute, to amuse myself, just because I can, is that because of low Intelligence, low Wisdom, low Charisma, or a combination? Or, did I write this because I have had quite a few vodka cocktails, which are impairing me in all three attributes? And, if it's the vodka speaking to you presently, which of my Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma is it impairing the most?
And, when I choose not to engage in such silliness, is that because I have a redeemingly high Wisdom, a redeemingly high Charisma, or a combination of both?
Namaste.
He could use simpler words, but, as he said, he's summoning Kant. It is a requirement--perhaps decreed by Kant himself--that all German Philosophers must obfuscate.
But he knows what he's talking about as far as I can tell. He's actually answering the question as a (especially intelligent) Paladin (that happened to read Kant or a Kant-like philosopher--Plato's in there too) might; all in character*, if you will.
For Kant freedom of the will has nothing to do with a 'forked path'. That is, it is not the ability to 'do, or do not.' It is the capacity to bind ourselves to moral law despite our (generally selfish) whimsical inclinations; also important and relevant is that it is discovered analytically (by thinking rather than scientific testing.) This is where his conception of Wisdom (as I understand it) comes in: it is this capacity to discover (and bind oneself to) these Universal Principals.
The problem I have with this is that Kantian metaphysics couldn't describe D&D--If wisdom generally leads one to freedom and freedom is acting (something like)a Lawful Good person, then most wise characters should be Lawful Good; any other alignment is irrational. It's like knowing that 1+1=2 but preferring to believe that it's 3 anyway.
*Not actually; this is how he really feels AFAIK.
I also admitted that I was drinking when I posted it. This morning, I considered whether I should be embarrassed to have admitted that, and perhaps that I should delete the post.
But on more sober consideration and reflection, I believe that it actually does bring up some interesting points that are germane to the discussion. I raised the question, "which of my real life ability statistics are impaired, and exactly what effect is that having?"
One obvious answer is that drinking alcohol lowers all of your stats significantly. I think perhaps that the wisdom score was the most lowered, though. With my full wisdom ability, I likely would have thought twice about posting an essay that might embarrass me in front of friends, or cause offense, and then not posted it at all.
I probably also could have made my main point much, much more clear if I hadn't been feeling so playful and silly. I really didn't need to tag anybody or to accuse Kant and the philosophers of being deliberately obtuse (although I think they kind of are).
The main point was that Intelligence is associated with, and possibly even identical to, the psychological Ego.
Wisdom is closely connected to spirituality and intuition, even meditation and mysticism.
The intelligent Ego is the part of your mind that keeps your body alive, and is in charge of the survival of the organism. It analyzes and breaks things down into manageable, useable parts.
The wise Self is the part of your mind that connects infinite parts together into wholes that are mysteriously greater than the sums of the parts. It searches for and perceives meaning that transcends that which can be understood or grasped by the intelligent Ego.
So, I'm smiling again as I try to write about it. I see a humorous irony that I am falling into the same trap I accused the philosophers of falling into, that is, using so many words that clarity is lost. "The Tao that can be spoken is not the Tao."
I also injected Charisma into the discussion. The charismatic Leader, Teacher, or Parent is the part of your mind that relates what is known by the Ego or the Self to other people effectively. It is assisted by but not determined by physical attractiveness, in that it is human nature to respond to and be persuaded by perceived physical beauty. We know that from studies where babies are shown pictures of attractive and unattractive faces; they smile at the pretty ones, and fuss or even start to cry at the ugly ones.
But that is only one component of a high Charisma, and it is not sufficient by itself. And, it is possible for a great personality to transcend an unattractive visage through sheer personal magnetism and force of will, thus becoming a great persuader, salesperson, politician, teacher, or leader. It is also possible for a very physically beautiful person to be so abusive towards others and narcissistic, that their final Charisma is actually extremely low, causing reaction penalties in others every time they open their mouths.
I like to call the combined Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma the "mental" scores, and the combined Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution the "physical" scores. The D&D attribute scores give us a fairly clear mind/body polarity, and using the "mental" scores, we can also develop a psychodynamic theory of personality that resembles but is not quite the same as Freud's.
(looks down) Looks like I'm doing it too! :P No cure for the philosophy bug.
Philosophers seem deliberately obtuse because their subject matter is much more complicated than our minds allow us to see.
A great philosopher once said that we should simplify as much as possible, but we should not simplify too much as we risk losing sight of our subject.
But what do you do when you discover that something apparently "simple"is, in fact, so tremendously complicated that you have to make up your own terms because you don't even have the language to talk about it? What if that thing is centrally important to the human endeavor like morality, knowledge, religion, meaning, value, etc?
a philosophers (thankless
Aristotle was only partially right when he said man is a rational animal. Man has the capacity for rationality but he is a tribal/social/symbolic animal as well: I am what I am because the people around me are what they are; they are what they are because the people around them are what they are, etc. This is difficult to see unless one thinks honestly about what a different person they might be if one existed, say, as part of a remote cannibalistic tribe; a soldier in Nazi concentration camp; an aristocrat in the Roman Empire, etc.
We live a world away from (most?) other creatures--a world of (admittedly useful) symbols that we can't help but reify--socialization is at least partially a process of internalization and acceptance of a set of hypotheses that we instinctively believe mirror of the 'world as it is'. We all are the lucky ones that happened to be born in the one civilization that managed to carve nature at her joints! Phew!
There is more, and Kant is very helpful here. We will accept a distinction between the 'physical' and 'mental' perhaps partially because of Homer. But Kant would say that we must accept them--antimonious* as they are!--as necessary presuppositions of perception and agency respectively. Whatever the case, that we must perceive the world in this way does not mean that the world is this way; such thinking leads to contradiction and irreconcilable paradox as any critique of classical dualism will show.
What does this show us? Well, not much. I'd need a few thousand more words*. But, if I was to make a serious study of this, I'd want to know first if there is something like "wisdom" that can be distinguished from some other thing called "intelligence" (and perhaps "charisma"). I like that you referenced an empirical study but it should be noted that scientists make tons of necessary assumptions in their work. For example, they have a tendency to define 'beautiful' as 'symmetrical' and 'intelligent' as a score on an IQ test. They--and science journalists--also have an irritating tendency to report their interpretations rather than their findings. I personally have read a lot on intelligence and rationality and I'm not convinced that it exists as a stable trait. Heh, that's an interpretation! Well, it's also 4:20 in the morning and I've lost my point.
* This is why it is impossible to say some important things using simple, pithy statements. I can use the word 'antimonious' in a single word or I can describe it in a sixteen foot wall of text. There is no easy way out of the cave!
We philosophers can't seem to resist complexifying everything we experience. We take things that were probably just fine by themselves, and analyze them to death. I think we can't help ourselves. It's just the nature of our minds.
If I were to roleplay a D&D character with this trait, I'd probably exaggerate it into a comical character, and have him drone on and on about stuff, using multisyllabic, abstract vocabulary, and without saying anything useful. We actually see characters like this in good fantasy and science fiction - for example, Mr. Spock from Star Trek, both Daniel Jackson and Samantha Carter from Stargate, and Dr. Rodney McKay in Stargate:Atlantis, just to name a few. They can be scientists, doctors, or any kind of scholar. They usually have a foil who constantly calls them out on their lack of wisdom in their rantings - a Dr. McCoy, a Colonel O'Neil, or a Colonel Shephard, in my examples.
So, the answer I am thinking to the OP is that, if you want to roleplay high Intelligence with low Wisdom, look at the performances of the actors who play those kinds of characters. The foils to those characters are usually playing medium or high wisdom but with average or low intelligence.
Another way to look at it is that a character's Intelligence score governs his or her mathematical acumen, vocabulary and word useage, ability with abstract symbols and diagrams, and theoretical knowledge.
A character's Wisdom score governs his or her ability to apply whatever talents that character may have to pragmatic, real-world, empirical, daily life. Wise characters in stories are usually the guides, mentors and teachers to the heroes, and/or the foil to the inevitable "intelligent fool" character in the same story. They play the part of "voice of reason" when tempers flare and their parties are arguing. They often have the flash of insight that leads to resolution of the story conflict, saying one simple line that puts all the other characters on track. They can either be almost as intelligent as the "intelligent fool" characters, or sometimes, they may have very low intelligence, but prone to "out of the mouths of babes" type flashes of brilliant insight into the story resolution.