Broadly, we think of a wise person as one who knows how to solve complex problems, cares about others, and is self-aware enough to make unbiased decisions. Thus, we use a tripartite (three-component) model. Intelligence is not enough, as there are countless examples of very capable people making very bad choices. Compassion alone is also insufficient as emotional attachment can land us in trouble. Since intelligence can be fairly easily measured for specific applications, and moral decisions are subjective and cultural, Sophiometrics focuses on the crucial foundation to wise judgment, self awareness. We think of it like this:

While our self-awareness assessment overlaps somewhat with compassion and intelligence (as might be expected), it primarily captures a distinct, essential part of wisdom not otherwise obtained.

To be clear, we do not claim to measure, or even understand, every aspect of what people think of as “wisdom”. After all, science still struggles with understanding “intelligence” and largely focuses on what is easily measured, often ignoring musical, naturalistic, bodily, interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence, with that last category being the closest for what we’re calling wisdom: knowledge of, and skill with, internal processes that guide knowledge application. Or more briefly, self-awareness demonstrated by good judgment, as has been recognized for millennia.

“Knowing yourself is true wisdom.” – Lao Tzu
“Awareness of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.” – Socrates

We focus on assessing ignorance awareness, using a Socratic approach of asking questions and observing behavior. No matter how capable someone is, if they exceed their abilities, mistakes will be made. In fact, the more capable someone is, the more power they may have, and the less likely others will critique their choices, making lack of awareness potentially more costly. Sophiometrics measures the wise discernment between what to do and what not to do.

Sophiometrics applies patent-pending methodology and analytics to derive a statistic called the MetaKnowledge Index (MKI) which measures individual differences in expressed awareness of limitations in ability, essentially capturing how well someone knows what they don’t know. See how we operationalize wisdom.

Behaviorally. While there is growing research interest on the subject of wisdom, the most popular metrics are all self-report which, paradoxically, requires considerable self-awareness for accuracy. Self-report also introduces social-desirability bias, interpretation variance, and cultural confounds. Rather than measuring what someone thinks about a situation or says how they will act, behavioral measures bypass all this to simply capture what they do.

The fictional character Forrest Gump demonstrated wisdom, with associated humility, modesty, patience and kindness, despite low intelligence. Following his famous mantra, “Stupid is as stupid does”, Sophiometrics assesses wisdom by tracking what one does, avoiding the multiple biases of self-report measures or subjective appraisals.

Consider the matrix below of competence and action contrasting our ability with how we apply it. The popular bias for action prioritizes the left column, which can lead to both “smart” and “stupid” outcomes. Ideally, we should prioritize the top row which accepts inaction as sometimes the wiser choice.

Our technique is not based on a specific test or set of items, but a broad methodology of item generation and statistical analysis techniques that are unlike those used in common cognitive ability or personality assessments. Rather than the top-down approach of starting with a conceptual trait then assembling relevant items (through factor analysis, item-response theory, etc.), we built from the bottom up, starting with behavior then engineering items to elicit it. This is not a conventional test of intelligence or personality, yet it captures both in a unique way.

Faced with challenging problems, how do we decide between doing and not doing? Does pressure to perform push us toward failure? Sophiometrics captures the internal strength and awareness we need to make wise choices when they matter.

No. The famous “Unskilled and Unaware” Dunning-Kruger effect became widely known but subsequent research contradicting it did not, probably because people who think of themselves as skilled like to imagine they are also self-aware. The reverse effect, where more expertise leads to worse performance, is also well-documented. Unlike most research on overconfidence, Sophiometrics strictly isolates wise judgment from ability. Our validation research shows independence from general cognitive ability – we capture wisdom distinctly across the spectrum of intelligence.

Yes, and no. About a century ago, when the social and economic value of cognitive ability testing was being established, researchers began exploring broader characteristics related to intelligence, such as tendencies for overstatement. While that approach fell out of use, subsequent research identified overconfidence broadly as overestimation, overplacement, and overprecision. Another approach examined overclaiming behavior. Curiously, these different lines of research produced contradictory models of underlying psychological processes, and often showed confounds with general intelligence. The proprietary technology used by Sophiometrics integrates insights from this literature (as well as cognitive psychology and computational psycholinguistics) while eliminating confounds and contradictions. The result is a trait assessment unlike any other.

While bias for action is often helpful in getting things done, if we lack the guardrails of humility, we can commit errors. Extreme examples include the engineering hubris of the Titanic and the OceanGate Submersible where very capable people created catastrophes. Similar but more insidious overconfidence appears in excessive medical treatments, judicial conviction of innocents, overrun construction budgets, and many other costly examples. Collectively, groupthink can magnify individual bias by adding social pressure to conform. Rarely are leaders praised for restraint. Even our education systems inhibit self-awareness by shaming innocent ignorance and encouraging students to guess at answers. A hallmark of wisdom is the ability to make unbiased decisions despite self-serving motivations, and this is what Sophiometrics measures.

Not really. Imagine a task where you’re checking numbers against a list, where speed and accuracy compete: Going faster leads to more errors while double-checking slows you down. Sophiometrics competes ability against humility so that exaggeration of one undermines the other. Optimal scores require, as the sages advise, knowing what you know, and what you don’t know.

The relationships described below were all statistically significant, typically at p < .01.

Reliability

The MetaKnowledge Index (MKI) used by Sophiometrics is not simply a sum of item scores, but a sophisticated synergy of the entire item set. Thus, for internal consistency, a conventional Cohen’s α does not apply, but bootstrapped simulations (to estimate all possible inter-correlations) are around .75. The MKI technique, applied across different item sets, knowledge domains, question formats, and populations, reliably showed the statistically significant validities described below.

Criterion Validity

A primary outcome variable in our research was undergraduate grade point average (GPA) at an ethnically-diverse, high-ranking university. We chose this because it represented a broad, multi-faceted life outcome, independently tested by multiple experts over significant time reflecting holistic efficacy in a wide spectrum of life challenges for a population representative of emerging generations of professionals. Multiple versions of the MKI all significantly predicted GPA.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

To better characterize what the MKI represents (and what it doesn’t), we examined several related constructs.

Cognitive abilities: The MKI reliably related to general intelligence, recognition memory accuracy, problem-solving abilities, and clerical accuracy.

Personality: Typical Big Five personality measures did not explain MKI variance, but we did find significant correlations with the six-dimensional HEXACO‘s Honesty-Humility factor and Altruism facet.

Self-Enhancement: The MKI related (negatively) to overconfidence, entitlement, Narcissism, lack of intellectual humility, hindsight bias (“I knew it all along”) and overplacement (“better-than-average” effect).

Behaviors: Impatience, cheating, carelessness (as a trait, not just a state), and unjustified ability claims were identified by the MKI.

Metacognition: Self-report measures of metacognitive skills, need for cognition, or growth mindset, did not correlate with the MKI, but behavioral measures (cognitive reflection, overestimation) did.

Demographics: Sex and socio-economic factors did not appear to be significant predictors of the MKI, while cultural variables were inconsistent. However, as expected, the wisdom tracked by the MKI did increase with age.

Incremental Validity

Predicting GPA alone is a low bar, so we controlled for all the measures described above and found the MKI isolated unique variance, significantly increasing R². This is what makes the MKI valuable; it reveals information otherwise overlooked, even by dozens of other measures. In particular, the MKI captures the destructive effects self-enhancement has on the good judgment required for successful knowledge performance, independent of intelligence. The MKI helps you distinguish wise people from the merely smart.