"In 1950, the psychoanalyst Erik H. Erikson, in a famous treatise on the phases of life development, identified wisdom as a likely, but not inevitable, byproduct of growing older. Wisdom arose, he suggested, during the eighth and final stage of psychosocial development, which he described as "ego integrity versus despair." If an individual had achieved enough "ego integrity" over the course of a lifetime, then the imminent approach of infirmity and death would be accompanied by the virtue of wisdom. Unfortunately for researchers who followed, Erikson didn't bother to define wisdom.

As an ancient concept and esteemed human value, wisdom has historically been studied in the realms of philosophy and religion. The idea has been around at least since the Sumerians first etched bits of practical advice - "We are doomed to die; let us spend" - on clay tablets more than 5,000 years ago. But as a trait that might be captured by quantitative measures, it has been more like the woolly mammoth of ideas - big, shaggy and elusive. It is only in the last three decades that wisdom has received even glancing attention from social scientists. Erikson's observations left the door open for the formal study of wisdom, and a few brave psychologists rushed in where others feared to tread.

In some respects, they have not moved far beyond the very first question about wisdom: What is it? And it won't give anything away to reveal that 30 years after embarking on the empirical study of wisdom, psychologists still don't agree on an answer. But it is also true that the journey in many ways may be as enlightening as the destination.

From the outset, it's easier to define what wisdom isn't. First of all, it isn't necessarily or intrinsically a product of old age, although reaching an advanced age increases the odds of acquiring the kinds of life experiences and emotional maturity that cultivate wisdom, which is why aspects of wisdom are increasingly attracting the attention of gerontological psychologists. Second, if you think you're wise, you're probably not. As Gandhi (who topped the leader board a few years ago in a survey in which college students were asked to name wise people) put it, "It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom." Indeed, a general thread running through modern wisdom research is that wise people tend to be humble and "other-centered" as opposed to self-centered.

...Certain qualities associated with wisdom recur in the academic literature: a clear-eyed view of human nature and the human predicament; emotional resiliency and the ability to cope in the face of adversity; an openness to other possibilities; forgiveness; humility; and a knack for learning from lifetime experiences. And yet as psychologists have noted, there is a yin-yang to the idea that makes it difficult to pin down. Wisdom is founded upon knowledge, but part of the physics of wisdom is shaped by uncertainty. Action is important, but so is judicious inaction. Emotion is central to wisdom, yet detachment is essential.

If you think all those attributes sound fuzzy, vague and absolutely refractory to quantification, you've got a lot of company in the academic community. But there is a delicious paradox at the heart of the study of wisdom. As difficult as it is to define, the mere contemplation of a definition is an irresistible exercise that says a lot about who we aspire to become over the course of a lifetime and what we value as a society. And little pieces of that evolving definition of wisdom - especially the ability to cope with adversity and the regulation of emotion with age - have begun to attract researchers with brain-scanning machines and serious chops in neuroscience."

"Is not wisdom found among the aged?
        Does not long life bring understanding?

To God belong wisdom and power;
        counsel and understanding are his."

Job 12:12-13

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;
        all who follow his precepts have good understanding.
        To him belongs eternal praise."

Psalm 111:10

Enduring marriage safeguards mental health-for both men and women.  But marital failure immediately jeopardizes the psychological well-being of men and women.  To investigate the timing and character of the psychological harm visited upon both genders when marriages fail, sociologists at the University of Alberta recently pored over data collected between 1994 and 1998 from a nationally representative sample of over eleven thousand men and women.  They began their analysis of the data fully aware that "despite the growing retreat from marriage in both Canada and the United States ... studies clearly show that married individuals enjoy longer lives and are in better physical and mental health than their unmarried counterparts."   What they sought to establish through their analysis, however, is whether marital breakup affects men and women in the same way, particularly in the short run.

The Alberta scholars' analysis first confirms what the researchers already knew.  "We find," the researchers report, "that marriage continues to be beneficial for mental health."  The Canadian men and women in a stable marriage throughout the study period experienced "significantly lower levels of distress relative to those who remain single, separated, or divorced."  The data further indicate that "entry into marriage is associated with lower levels of distress and a transition out of marriage increases psychological distress."  But the Alberta team naturally focuses on the answer to their primary research question:  "We find no evidence," the investigators write, "to suggest that the short-term effects of change in marital status on psychological distress are different for men and women."  In other words, the disintegration of a marriage puts the former husband and the former wife in equal short-term psychological peril.