Sapience
Submitted by Wayne on Tue, 2007-07-10 11:40.
Holiness | Stupidity
Sapience
This model or theory of sapience is meant to better qualify and even attempt to quantify an individual's maturity by his demonstrated wisdom. On the one end is a fully mature and complete man (or woman), wise in his thoughts and actions. On the other end of the continuum is immaturity as shown by significant foolishness or stupidity.
This model is still in draft form. The author expects it will be improved and refined over time.
As wisdom is something earned with experience (and by choice), this model is best when used with adults; that is, people of an age able to choose wisdom over foolishness. While our present society may be inappropriately shifted toward immaturity well into adulthood, this author reasonably believes this model may be appropriately applied any time following puberty.
This model assumes no overriding neurosis/psychosis. Several psychological disorders will necessarily diminish one or more of these traits. While the result of diminished overall sapience is expected and appropriate, the reason for it is not accounted for by The Sapience Model but by the disorder(s). At a future time, such overriding disorders (chosen from the DSM-IV) shall be listed for completeness.
Each orthogonal trait of sapience can be thought of as being quantifiable along a continuum. This vector analysis provides a rather complete picture of an individual's sapience profile. Likewise, an overly simplified scalar evaluation of sapience can be reasonably deduced from the sum total of the quantified, orthogonal traits.
The traits associated with sapience are:
1. Altruism
2. Autonomy
3. Biblical worldview
4. Coping skills
5. Curiosity
6. Ethics
7. Identity
8. Industry
9. Introspection
10. Learning
11. Logic
12. Reality
13. Responsibility
14. Truth
Quantifying these traits reveals strata of wisdom. Following these strata is a description of the estimated population distribution.
Emotional maturity is easily seen as a subset of sapience.
What follows is an attempt to provide a reasonable starting point in quantifying these sapience traits. Each quantum is briefly described particularly in relation to the rest of the trait's continuum. To be sure, such qualified evaluation can be subjectively warped, so this is by no means to be used as a psychological examination. Presently, the following descriptions of traits are merely meant to bound and define the model.
This is essentially a scale of selfishness (or not). The antonym of altruism would be egocentrism.
0 = Completely self-absorbed, thinking nothing of others.
1 = Thinks of others when it suits self-centered purposes.
2 = Sometimes considers others first, but chosen actions are still mostly self-serving.
3 = Often puts self second to others, even if not consistently.
4 = Usually thinks of others first; may emphasize others' feelings more than real repercussions, or vice versa.
5 = Always thinks of others before self, considering repercussions and feelings prior to acting.
Ability to stand alone with unpopular beliefs, choices, and actions.
0 = Demonstrates herd mentality; offers no resistance to peer pressure.
1 = Tends to exhibit system justification; offers no real challenge to the status quo.
2 = Occasionally bucks the trends or does so in only isolated areas; peer support is very much required to maintain minority position.
3 = Able to be "on the losing team" as long as the team is of significant size (i.e., not a small minority); peer support is important even when not recognized as such; little to no overt system justification.
4 = Often able to withstand pressures of majority, but not usually varying from the norm in drastic ways.
5 = Always willing to stand alone, even against innumerable others, including closest family and friends.
As the Biblical worldview is the correct one, deviations from it will result in diminished sapience as indicated by inaccurate perceptions of reality and therefore less effective reactions to the same.
0 = Any denial of Original Sin or the sinful nature of mankind; any denial of grace by faith alone; any denial of the inerrancy, Authorship, or authority of the Bible; any denial of the Messiah ישוע (Jesus) (and His necessary, atoning sacrifice and resurrection) or the Holy Spirit or the Godhead.
1 = Acceptance of the above, basic doctrines but demonstration of persistent inconsistency between stated beliefs and resultant actions.
2 = Behavior consistent with the above, basic doctrines, but demonstrated persistent difference with other Biblical doctrines.
3 = Behavior consistent with the above, basic doctrines, plus any stated differences with other Biblical doctrines being brought into Biblical alignment over time.
4 = Stated doctrines are completely consistent with the Bible, and differing resultant actions being brought into Biblical alignment over time.
5 = Demonstrated worldview is completely consistent with the Bible and its doctrines as defined by the Holy Spirit.
Coping skills are a measure of how well someone adapts to new or stressful situations.
0 = Most any change in environment, relationships, or process causes emotional paralysis.
1 = Many minor changes can cause paralysis (e.g., rearranging furniture).
2 = Emotional or behavioral paralysis caused by any major changes and some minor changes, especially those violating perceived but unreal structure.
3 = Any major change in relationships, environment, or process can cause emotional or behavioral paralysis (e.g., moving to a new home, all new tax forms).
4 = Only major relationship changes (e.g., divorce, loss of a child, etc.) cause any emotional paralysis.
5 = No amount of change or external (or internal) stress causes emotional or behavioral paralysis.
Curiosity is the art and science of discovering and actively investigating the previously unknown (or less-known), with the aim of integrating this new knowledge and someday applying it, even if in obscure or unclear ways.
0 = Curiosity is dormant or nonexistent; not even the extraordinary arouses interest or motivates further pursuit.
1 = Curiosity is demonstrated only insofar as is necessary to meet basic needs.
2 = Curiosity is limited to one or very few topics (e.g., sports, trains).
3 = Curiosity is not uncommon but not the norm; pursuit (further investigation) is limited.
4 = Many topics arouse curiosity, even if their pursuit may be haphazard or ill-timed.
5 = Pervasive curiosity; practically no topic is off-limits to further pursuit and investigation.
Ethics is the study (and result of this study) of what is right and best. Morality is likewise but limited to that which is right, implying a more black-and-white perspective. Ethics is the superset (inclusive of morality) also including an evaluation of what may be best and accommodates the gray-scale continuum of right-and-wrong.
0 = Only basic, direct, interpersonal morality is demonstrated (e.g., avoiding rape, murder, assault, obvious theft, etc.), and even this may not be were it not for legal or other self-interested consequences; anything less would be considered a psychosis.
1 = Enlightened self-interest; morality is demonstrated only because of how it is seen as being best for self.
2 = Morality is of significant concern, but ethics are generally beyond consideration.
3 = Morality is generally assured; ethics are sometimes analyzed, usually in larger decisions.
4 = Actively studies ethics to better discern what is right in most situations.
5 = Always strives to do not only that which is right but that which is also best for all and in all situations.
Identity is a sense of self, a comfort with one's own personality, gifts, and talents.
0 = Personality changes from one environment to the next; no known reason for existence; no known purpose; no satisfaction or understanding of one's own personality, gifts, or talents; demonstrated values are haphazard.
1 = Personality changes are exhibited occasionally, but a stable set of styles is presented; familiarity with one's talents; no particular purpose is being fulfilled; demonstrated values are consistent but differ from stated values.
2 = Personality and talents may be known (and mostly stable), but lacking in comfort with them; existential purpose is not questioned, let alone known.
3 = Stable, consistent personality and comfortable with the same; talents are well known and being actively lived, even if existential purpose is not.
4 = A strong sense of self is exhibited; comfortable with own personality, talents, style, even if personal purposes is not yet known; general purpose for existence is well known.
5 = One's personal purpose for existence (i.e., calling) is well known and being actively lived.
Industry is the opposite of laziness. If laziness is the avoidance of making any effort, industry is seeking out opportunities to do work, with no avoidance of effort.
0 = Laziness personified; only the bare minimum of effort is exerted to maintain subsistence.
1 = Effort is made only when absolutely necessary to maintain the status quo and when it cannot be done by others.
2 = Effort is avoided except when necessary to maintain the status quo.
3 = Demonstrates only reactive effort, responding to needs or requests as they arise; no proactive behavior; will make effort even if not necessary, though, when requested.
4 = Effort is not balked when necessary; some proactive behavior.
5 = No amount of effort is avoided when necessary or appropriate; proactive, anticipating needs and meeting them before they're critical; plans (and performs the plans) for tomorrow's needs.
Introspection is the process and habit of self-analysis, self-questioning, and self-discovery, both intellectually and emotionally.
0 = No thought is given to one's own motivations, thoughts, or behaviors.
1 = Self-analysis is only performed when induced by an outside force (e.g., therapy, accusation).
2 = Self-analysis is occasionally performed but only intellectually; not done for one's own emotions or motivations, and awareness of which is very limited.
3 = Introspection is often performed for topics of the intellect, but awareness of one's own emotional motivations is still vague or even dishonest.
4 = Most of one's own actions are questioned both intellectually and emotionally, discerning motivations and needs.
5 = All actions and thoughts are questioned and analyzed; lessons learned from self are used to better understand others' thoughts and emotions.
This trait describes a pattern of mental growth, learning from one's mistakes and from behavior that doesn't generate desired or positive results, as well as demonstration of learning new skills habitually.
0 = Rarely learns from mistakes; often repeats obviously ineffective behavior; avoids learning new skills if possible.
1 = Repeats subtly ineffective behavior ad nauseam; no habit of learning new skills.
2 = Often repeats subtly ineffective behavior, even when subtlety is removed; generally learns new skills only when deemed necessary.
3 = Able to avoid ineffective behavior once it's understood as such, even if inconsistently; new skills are learned when necessary and sometimes for lifestyle enhancement.
4 = Usually learns from mistakes and ineffectively behavior; may not demonstrate a consistent lifestyle of learning new skills.
5 = Learns from mistakes and ineffectiveness (i.e., does not repeat); continuously learning new skills.
This is a measure of what drives one's decisions, actions, and responses. At one extreme is pure emotionalism, where little thought is given to reactions prior to experiencing them, relying on instincts and conditioning only. At the other end is where every choice and action is determined through rational thought and effective, logical derivation.
0 = Actions are driven entirely by emotions.
1 = Logic is incorrect used only to justify emotionally driven decisions and actions after the fact.
2 = Logical constructs are highly faulty; usually used for self-justification; even moderately emotional states will subjugate one's logic, deferring to emotions instead.
3 = Logic is used on most decisions but the higher the emotional state, the less likely logic will reign; logical construction is reasonable even if not complete and mature.
4 = Logical construction is mature without internal inconsistency; emotional factors or others' needs may not be taken into account.
5 = Actions are determined entirely by sophisticated and complete logic, with one's own and others' emotional needs factored in, properly proportioned.
In addition to worldview, several factors can influence how accurately reality is perceived. This trait attempts to measure this perceptive accuracy.
0 = Evaluation of motives, feelings, facts, and conclusions is frequently in error; anything less would tend to indicate a disorder.
1 = Understanding motives, feelings, and drawing proper conclusions is more the exception than the rule; understanding observed facts may often be accurate.
2 = Facts may be reasonably understood; conclusions are often wrong; knowing others' feelings and motives is hit-or-miss.
3 = Greater comfort in evaluating others' feelings and motives; facts are generally seen accurately; conclusions are drawn rightly and wrongly about evenly.
4 = Others' motives and feelings are often known, as are facts; conclusions are occasionally off but often accurate.
5 = Others' (and own) motives and feelings are well understood; facts are seen correctly; conclusions are consistently correct.
Responsibility is not the habit of doing what must be done--that's industry. Responsibility is acceptance of personal blame for that which is self-induced, either by action or inaction.
0 = Personal responsibility is never taken; all that is wrong is someone else's fault.
1 = Personal blame is taken only to protect oneself from more severe consequences, but it's done so disingenuously.
2 = Blame is accepted only when it's roundly proved (by others) to be appropriate to do so; it's not readily and voluntarily accepted, but only when held accountable.
3 = Responsibility is occasionally demonstrated but is not necessarily the norm; repentance is haphazard or rare.
4 = Personal responsibility is accepted generally as appropriate, but repentance (an actual change of behavior) does not often accompany it.
5 = Every opportunity to take personal responsibility, insofar as it is really possible, is taken without hesitation or crippling guilt but with appropriate repentance.
Truth is not telling lies, exaggerations, or even omissions.
0 = Lying bordering on pathological; rarely honest with self.
1 = Lying is common, even if not commonly detectable by others; deceives self and others to justify errant behavior.
2 = "White" lies are habitual; often lies to self to resolve cognitive dissonance.
3 = Occasional "white" lies; may employ exaggerations too often; may occasionally deceive self.
4 = Demonstrated value on truth; lies are consciously avoided; "white" lies are rare; self-deception is rare.
5 = Never lies; exaggerations are for literary effect and plainly so; lies of omissions never consciously chosen; honest with and about self.
Were the scalar (Sapience scores from zero to seventy) laid out in a continuum, it may be observed as being carved into various strata or groups, with profound wisdom at one end and profound stupidity at the other.
+6σ: 66≤x
Wisdom becomes esoteric enough as to be difficult to describe to those of two or more strata lower. Self-improvement is more or less constant. Always making good choices. Actively, consistently serving the Lord and neighbor appropriately. While they meet their own interests as necessary, they appear to be very selfless. They are at peace with these choices. They are ever growing wiser.
+5σ: 59≤x<66
These are generally wise people, regularly striving toward improvement. They tend to be helpful, understanding, competent, humble, and successful by most any substantive measure. Any unlikely problem areas are rare exceptions to the rule of wisdom.
+4σ: 52≤x<59
These tend to be viewed as leaders and role models in that life's challenges are routinely met and conquered. Growth is the norm.
+3σ: 45≤x<52
Generally mature and growing in wisdom, this stratum represents the few who strive to better themselves. They may still have significant struggles, but they tend to be isolated to only a few functional areas (e.g., emotional health, or financial management, and so forth).
+2σ: 38≤x<45
Their awareness well beyond themselves, they look to serve others. Causes become the order of the day for these, being better understood in the larger picture. Under stress, self-interest will be asserted, but competent coping is routinely displayed.
+1σ: 31≤x<38
This group may exhibit signs of "awakening", their awareness growing beyond the interests of themselves and their loved ones. They may demonstrate interest in various causes, even if their understanding of these causes and their impact is highly flawed. Generally very helpful and selfless, the internal battle between selfishness and selflessness may at times appear to be at a stalemate.
0σ: 17<x<31
Such people are generally only self-interested. They exhibit significant struggles with most areas of life: social, financial, spiritual, emotional, etc.
-1σ: 10<x≤17
These are not only self-interested but short-sighted even in this, often sabotaging their own interests. They may initially go unidentified as essentially stupid.
-2σ: 3<x≤10
Profound stupidity. Even casual observers can see ample evidence of failure--in relationships, coping with life's challenges, professionally, even routine duties (e.g., driving).
-3σ: x≤3
Sapience this low tends to border on psychotic or evil. Such are so short-sighted as to harm their own interests, even to the point of significantly self-destructive behavior.
Scalar Notes
As noted above, scores below zero, though very real, are not handled by this model. Such scores would likely be represented by various pathologies and psychoses, even if undiagnosed as such. This does not preclude such disorders from existing in isolated functional areas for those with higher scores. This fact reveals an inherent weakness in the overly simplistic, scalar perspective of Sapience, no matter how convenient it may be.
In future improvements to this model, perhaps a delta factor could be introduced. In this way, any select few or even a single trait with scores radically departing from the average of the rest would be given more weight its cumulative, scalar representation. In other words, overall sapience would be further (or disproportionately) lowered by an abnormally low score in a single trait. In such cases, it is likely these departures from linear normality would indicate disorders. Without much greater sophistication, this model does not account for these very well.
In this author's estimation, a typical bell curve best represents the population distribution along the Sapience scalar continuum with a mean of about 24 and a standard deviation of 7. When this model is refined and quantification is more precise, studies should be conducted to better affix the mean and SD of this distribution.
