PDA

View Full Version : Very LTTP: Wisdom vs. Intelligence



Donnadogsoth
2013-10-20, 04:43 PM
Dear All,

I noticed the question floated some months ago: what is the difference between wisdom and intelligence? I've thought about this and just wanted to belatedly submit my answer.

Wisdom is simply knowledge about a given subject. If you know about engines you're wise to engines. If you know how to handle the streets you are streetwise. If you know all about life in general you are probably considered "wise" in general by those who know you.

Intelligence relative to wisdom, is the ability to acquire wisdom sooner rather than later. An intelligent person on the streets will probably become streetwise quicker than an unintelligent one.

Donnadogsoth

Blackjackg
2013-10-20, 05:26 PM
In D&D, both what you call intelligence and what you call wisdom fall into the category of "intelligence." It reflects crystallized knowledge, working memory, and problem-solving ability.

"Wisdom" in D&D is a little harder to define. Myself, I use "clarity" as a synonym for the D&D version of wisdom: the ability to ignore the noise and recognize what's important. Clarity of purpose gives clerics and paladins their power; clarity of perception helps with spot, listen and sense motive checks.

Outside of the D&D paradigm, wisdom and intelligence are even trickier to define-- psychologists write whole books on the subject without coming up with a single satisfactory answer.

Tengu_temp
2013-10-20, 06:07 PM
Intelligence is reason and logic - the ability to find solutions using raw mental power.

Wisdom is common sense and intuition - the ability to make correct judgements.

Donnadogsoth
2013-10-20, 07:29 PM
Intelligence is reason and logic - the ability to find solutions using raw mental power.

Wisdom is common sense and intuition - the ability to make correct judgements.

Dear Tengu,

Your definition of intelligence amounts to acquiring knowledge. "Solutions" means knowledge, some piece of information that your intelligence creates for you.

And, "making correct judgements" is also knowledge ("solutions"), that your wisdom provides you with from its store.

The only difference I can see between them is that intelligence constructs the knowledge that wisdom already has.

Donnadogsoth

Morithias
2013-10-20, 07:34 PM
Intelligence is the ability to build a weather control machine.

Wisdom is the foresight to patent it and market it legally rather than use it to extort money from Metropolis.

I usually define "Wisdom" as "the ability to see the big picture."

For example a LE ruler who treats her subjects with good social programs, food, healthcare, and so on, because she knows if she goes cruel tyrant she's going to get rebels and heroes knocking down her door. She doesn't actually care for her people, she just has the ability to see the bigger picture.

mindwarper10
2013-10-20, 07:45 PM
Dear Tengu,

Your definition of intelligence amounts to acquiring knowledge. "Solutions" means knowledge, some piece of information that your intelligence creates for you.

And, "making correct judgements" is also knowledge ("solutions"), that your wisdom provides you with from its store.

The only difference I can see between them is that intelligence constructs the knowledge that wisdom already has.

Donnadogsoth

making correct judgements isn't knowledge, you don't always know if what you choose is correct until the choosing is done, it's intuition, common sense or assuming and assuming correctly, whereas knowledge implies knowing.


to the op
Wisdom is your perception and understanding. Most people tend to understand lots of things they have never learned of or experienced. You can not be wise about steam engines, or hardware.

intelligence is things you have learned, mastery of skills.
Intelligence would be the knowing of things, not necessarily understanding them. You can't be knowledgeable about your deity/deities activities.

Blackjackg
2013-10-20, 08:16 PM
You can't be knowledgeable about your deity/deities activities.

You can with a high INT and ranks in Knowledge (Religion)...

Agrippa
2013-10-20, 08:18 PM
I'll use two examples to illustrate high Intelligence, low Wisdom vs. low Intelligence, high Wisdom.

First example, Rusty Venture from the Venture Brothers. He's highly intelligent and can devise a great many sceintific and technological accomplishments, if he weren't so short sighted and didn't try to turn so many of his ventures into I'll thought out get rich quick schemes. He also occasionally forgets his sons' names and has a penchant for bad decision making in general.

On the other hand you have Forrest Gump. He has an IQ of 75 yet almost never makes rash or foolish decisions. Forrest possesses a great deal of common sense and good judgment. Even though he seemingly lacks any sense of guile Forrest has a pretty good sense of when someone's trying to take advantage of him or others.

Slipperychicken
2013-10-20, 08:44 PM
I remember a pretty good one (probably wrongly, but here goes)


Intelligence tells you how to build a nuclear bomb.

Wisdom tells you that detonating it is a bad idea.

Charisma lets you convince people you'll do it anyway if they don't meet your demands.

LibraryOgre
2013-10-20, 08:46 PM
Intelligence is the ability to build a weather control machine.

Wisdom is the foresight to patent it and market it legally rather than use it to extort money from Metropolis.

I usually define "Wisdom" as "the ability to see the big picture."

For example a LE ruler who treats her subjects with good social programs, food, healthcare, and so on, because she knows if she goes cruel tyrant she's going to get rebels and heroes knocking down her door. She doesn't actually care for her people, she just has the ability to see the bigger picture.

This is rather close to how I see it.

To put it in physical terms, I like to compare them to attributes.

Charisma is Strength; it is the ability to make the world conform to your desires, be it "move this object" or "move these people".

Intelligence is Dexterity; it is mental agility and ability to flexibly react to situations.

Wisdom is Constitution; the ability to continue in your chosen course against the odds and vicissitudes.

Someone who is intelligent but not wise will react quickly to situations, but may change course frequently. That might result in them tacking against the wind to get to where they're going, or it might result in them wasting a lot of effort to get nothing done.

Someone who is wise but not intelligent will pick a course and stick to it. They may change a bit due to new information, but once set on a goal, they move towards it.

NichG
2013-10-20, 08:53 PM
The way I see it, Intelligence is the mental ability to work with and remember many things at the same time 'correctly' and 'effectively'. In the 'proactive' aspect, its a tool that can be directed at concrete or specific problems.

Wisdom on the other hand is being able to comprehend generalities, and understand the relative importance of things in a situation. It is also more about the goal or outcome than the means: you can use intelligence to solve a puzzle, but wisdom tells you what puzzle you should be working on. Solving a problem with wisdom will usually involve realizing something about the purpose of the problem that casts it in another light - for example, telling that something is a trick question or figuring out that the person writing a test is spelling something out with the letters of the multiple choice answers.

valadil
2013-10-20, 09:18 PM
My favorite literary example is Ender's Game. I'll try to keep this vague for spoiler's sake (and to keep from embarrassing myself since it's been at least 5 years since I read any of the books).

The first book in this scifi series is about a military academy in space. The main character is a child prodigy. He beats the hell out of all the tests. Ender has high intelligence.

Ender's Shadow focuses on one of the other characters, Bean. Bean is able to see through the tests and figure out the grand scheme of what's going on in the academy. Ender is completely oblivious to these things. Bean is an example of a high wisdom (and pretty high, but not maxed out intelligence) character.

While Bean isn't necessarily able to out think Ender in a closed environment, he'd probably come out on top in a real world conflict, because he'd approach it with a better understanding of the situation and more information to use to his advantage.

Joe the Rat
2013-10-20, 10:57 PM
I think part of the problem is that Intelligence and Wisdom the discussed concepts as overlayed onto a game system does some... odd things when connected to Int and Wis the game attributes. The way it works in the game works, for the most part. But what it does isn't exactly wisdom. But the label is legacy. Much like how "Perception" as an attribute never made it out of Dragon, but Comeliness (Yes, a stat for hawtness) did.

D&D Wisdom in particular seems quite the dumping ground. It's your sensibility... and your senses (whether or not you notice things). And your willpower (one of the things I liked about 4e is letting you use the better of Wisdom (self-control and sagaciousness) or Charisma (force of personality) for your Will saves).

Perception is the tricky one - I get the "tuned into the world, doing your Zen thing" interpretation, but it does fight a bit against keen-eyed but foolish scout concepts. Or that you can't be strong-willed and make poor decisions. Unless you put decision making under intelligence, in which case you can't be clever and make bad decisions. Clearly the solution is that "wisdom" (knowing what's best) and cleverness (creativity) don't map 1:1 to attributes. You can describe your high int, low wis character as "clever", or your low int, high wis character as "cunning" - and from there it falls to the player to make it happen.

Mark Hall has a great interpretation there (Shadowrun more or less follows the same parallel). Another way to think of it is from the perspective of Magic. Intelligence-based magic is about being clever and unlocking the secrets of the universe. Hacking the source code of reality to make it do what you want. Wisdom-based magic is about your attunement to nature (Druids), or to higher powers... Or it's about using your faith and channel to will minor miracles into existence. Charisma casters do magic by being awesome, and bending reality through force of personality.

Draz74
2013-10-20, 11:49 PM
My favorite literary example is Ender's Game.

The only reason Bean scores lower on the tests than Ender is because he messes up on purpose (due to some paranoia related to his "seeing through" them). Bean makes it clear a number of times that he's smarter even than Ender in sheer mental clout.

The big difference between them is really that Ender has a much better Charisma than Bean.

And while Ender didn't see through the tests, he did display a pretty robust survival instinct, as well as physical awareness of surroundings and common sense. I'd say his Wisdom score is pretty great -- but that he lacks ranks in Sense Motive. Bean, on the other hand, probably has max ranks and Skill Focus in Sense Motive.

Slipperychicken
2013-10-21, 07:28 AM
The big difference between them is really that Ender has a much better Charisma than Bean.


I just want to support this with:

Ender was the one who was able to transform Team Dragon from a bunch of motley kids into an disciplined, loyal fighting force.

I'm a bit hazy on the later books, but I don't recall Bean doing anything particularly charismatic.. He does train the UN/Hegemon army, but I imagine that's an easier task than turning children into soldiers.

valadil
2013-10-21, 08:02 AM
The only reason Bean scores lower on the tests than Ender is because he messes up on purpose (due to some paranoia related to his "seeing through" them). Bean makes it clear a number of times that he's smarter even than Ender in sheer mental clout.

Hmm. I took that as Bean trying to show himself that he's smarter rather than proof that he really is. But like I said, it's been years since I read the books.

Tengu_temp
2013-10-21, 08:17 AM
Dear Tengu,

Your definition of intelligence amounts to acquiring knowledge. "Solutions" means knowledge, some piece of information that your intelligence creates for you.

And, "making correct judgements" is also knowledge ("solutions"), that your wisdom provides you with from its store.

The only difference I can see between them is that intelligence constructs the knowledge that wisdom already has.

Donnadogsoth

I disagree. Knowing is one thing, using that knowledge is another. There are many people who are unable to use the knowledge they have to the best results because they lack the intelligence to do so. And a lot of the time, an intelligent person can use logic and reason to create a solution even when they lack the knowledge.

Similarily, making a judgement has little in common with knowledge either. Which of those paths should I take? Which of those people should I trust? Making good decisions requires wisdom. I know plenty of people who are intelligent and knowledgable, yet make absolutely awful decisions all the time because they lack wisdom.

Knowledge is information stored inside your mind. But intelligence and wisdom are qualities of the mind itself - even someone who knows nothing can still be intelligent or wise.

Heliomance
2013-10-21, 09:11 AM
Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

http://demotivationalpost.com/demotivators/12740809330/intelligence-vs-wisdom.jpg

Deaxsa
2013-10-21, 10:46 AM
I just want to support this with:

Ender was the one who was able to transform Team Dragon from a bunch of motley kids into an disciplined, loyal fighting force.

I'm a bit hazy on the later books, but I don't recall Bean doing anything particularly charismatic.. He does train the UN/Hegemon army, but I imagine that's an easier task than turning children into soldiers.

didn't bean put together that team because HE saw that this would be a perfect team of misfits? that point goes to Bean, not Ender. (granted, i agree with the Higher Charisma thing... If we also accept that Bean has much higher wisdom.) I'd Stat them out at something along the lines of:

Bean:
15-18 INT
18 WIS
12 CHA

Ender:
15-17 INT
14 WIS
16 CHA

or around about those values.

WeLoveFireballs
2013-10-21, 12:18 PM
Ender:
15-17 INT
14 WIS
16 CHA.

So Ender must have gone up quite a few levels in the next 20 years to get to his wisdom in Speaker for the Dead. :smallbiggrin:

LibraryOgre
2013-10-21, 01:15 PM
So Ender must have gone up quite a few levels in the next 20 years to get to his wisdom in Speaker for the Dead. :smallbiggrin:

Middle Age adds some points of wisdom.

Donnadogsoth
2013-10-21, 01:23 PM
I'll use two examples to illustrate high Intelligence, low Wisdom vs. low Intelligence, high Wisdom.

First example, Rusty Venture from the Venture Brothers. He's highly intelligent and can devise a great many sceintific and technological accomplishments, if he weren't so short sighted and didn't try to turn so many of his ventures into I'll thought out get rich quick schemes. He also occasionally forgets his sons' names and has a penchant for bad decision making in general.

On the other hand you have Forrest Gump. He has an IQ of 75 yet almost never makes rash or foolish decisions. Forrest possesses a great deal of common sense and good judgment. Even though he seemingly lacks any sense of guile Forrest has a pretty good sense of when someone's trying to take advantage of him or others.

Dear Agrippa,

Rusty's case seems to me more like a savant. His ill-thought-out schemes betray what most common people would call stupidity. Long-term stupidity versus short-term cleverness. But, the deficit is still knowledge: he doesn't know what to do in the long-term or even that he should be worrying about it.

Gump's case seems like what I've said above: he has knowledge of what to do in certain situations. Whether he gained that by being a fast learner with respect to it, or it is intuitive, we don't know, but it is knowledge that he has--knowledge of what to do in various situations--even if that is commonly called wisdom, and even if he couldn't share that knowledge with anyone directly.

Donnadogsoth

Donnadogsoth
2013-10-21, 01:56 PM
I disagree. Knowing is one thing, using that knowledge is another. There are many people who are unable to use the knowledge they have to the best results because they lack the intelligence to do so. And a lot of the time, an intelligent person can use logic and reason to create a solution even when they lack the knowledge.

Similarily, making a judgement has little in common with knowledge either. Which of those paths should I take? Which of those people should I trust? Making good decisions requires wisdom. I know plenty of people who are intelligent and knowledgable, yet make absolutely awful decisions all the time because they lack wisdom.

Knowledge is information stored inside your mind. But intelligence and wisdom are qualities of the mind itself - even someone who knows nothing can still be intelligent or wise.

Dear Tengu,

I disagree in turn. What is wisdom without knowledge? A person can hardly be said to be wise if they don't know anything.

"What should we do, wise old man?"
"I don't…know…"

Kind of a contradiction, no?

I agree that wisdom is a quality of the mind, a quality defined by that mind being in possession of knowledge. Given enough knowledge a person can be said to know, and know they know, and know long term and short term things to do, but it's all about knowing, even knowing the gaps in your knowledge.

When you say "…There are many people who are unable to use the knowledge they have to the best results because they lack the intelligence to do so. And a lot of the time, an intelligent person can use logic and reason to create a solution even when they lack the knowledge. "

To which I say, how is a solution not a kind of knowledge? It is embedded in the language: If intelligence creates a solution, then the person can be said to "know what to do. "

When you say, "…making a judgement has little in common with knowledge either. Which of those paths should I take? Which of those people should I trust? Making good decisions requires wisdom. I know plenty of people who are intelligent and knowledgeable, yet make absolutely awful decisions all the time because they lack wisdom."

Consider your rhetorical questions: Either you know which path to take, or which person to trust, or you don't. It still comes down to knowledge. An intelligent person can come up with knowledge of what to do on the fly, a wise person knew it already. Someone who is making bad decisions all the time lacks knowledge of how to live their life properly, for if you knew how to live properly, nothing stopping you to the contrary, would you not act on it, just as if you knew the red butter knife on the stovetop was hot, you would not pick it up?

Donnadogsoth

Draz74
2013-10-21, 01:59 PM
I'd Stat them out at something along the lines of:

My opinion:

Bean
INT: ~21 (template)
WIS: ~16 (but maxxed Sense Motive, as I argued before)
CHA: 10

Ender
INT: 18
WIS: ~17
CHA: ~17

To expand on the "template" part:
I'd argue for this even if there was no direct evidence supporting it from the books, just based on how intelligent Bean is portrayed throughout. After all, the limit of 18 for ability scores doesn't really have enough breadth for the variety of humanity; it's easily demonstrable that some real-life weightlifters have Strength of 20+ in D&D terms. In general, I favor the explanation that there are a number of commoner-applicable "templates" that can boost scores beyond their "normal" limits. They aren't necessarily visible to others in the in-character world, like having a monstrous parent, and they don't have to be statted up in the rulebooks to exist. OotS even follows this formula, with (for example) O-Chul having a CON score that is impossibly high by the standard rules. And in real life, there's no way you're going to convince me that e.g. Richard Feynmann was just a regular INT 18-19 genius.

But in this specific case, I don't even have to go on all that. The later books reveal that Bean is genetically engineered to be exceptionally intelligent, which is an easy case for a template if I ever heard one.

hamishspence
2013-10-21, 02:07 PM
D&D has a minitemplate (Prodigy of (stat), in DMG2) that not only grants +2 to the relevant stat, but also +4 on top of that, to all checks relating to that stat.

So a Bean who is INT18 + a Prodigy of Intelligence, would be INT20, and get +4 on all Knowledge checks, Intelligence-related checks in general, etc.

NichG
2013-10-21, 03:30 PM
Dear Tengu,

I disagree in turn. What is wisdom without knowledge? A person can hardly be said to be wise if they don't know anything.

"What should we do, wise old man?"
"I don't…know…"

Kind of a contradiction, no?


Only because you're conflating two kinds of knowledge here that aren't the same. There is a difference between knowing 'how to do something' and knowing 'what should I do?'. The difference is that the former is independent from the self - a robot could 'know' that as much as a person, and the answer does not change. In the latter case, it is more about being self aware - questions like 'what would make me happy?' don't have absolute formal answers.

The separation is that one is analytic and the other is intuitive.


Consider your rhetorical questions: Either you know which path to take, or which person to trust, or you don't. It still comes down to knowledge. An intelligent person can come up with knowledge of what to do on the fly, a wise person knew it already. Someone who is making bad decisions all the time lacks knowledge of how to live their life properly, for if you knew how to live properly, nothing stopping you to the contrary, would you not act on it, just as if you knew the red butter knife on the stovetop was hot, you would not pick it up?


Again, the difference here is that one type of 'knowledge' can basically be externalized. You can tell someone else or learn from someone else 'in this kind of terrain, fight this way' or 'this is how you solve a quadratic equation'. The problems and solutions - the knowledge - is distinct from an understanding of the self and one's relationship with the world.

But when you ask what leads to a bad decision, thats generally a lack of awareness of how something will affect you or the others around you. Like in the case of the stereotypical high Int/low Wis character, they come up with 'great ideas' (solutions to difficult problems) but lack a real awareness of the possible consequences of implementing those ideas (that solution will also kill the user; make bears go extinct; whatever).

Equinox
2013-10-21, 03:37 PM
If you feel drops of water falling on your head, Intelligence is what tells you it's raining. Wisdom is what tells you to get indoors.

hamishspence
2013-10-21, 03:48 PM
If you feel drops of water falling on your head, Intelligence is what tells you it's raining. Wisdom is what tells you to get indoors.

I have a soft spot for this old joke, illustrating something similar:

Holmes and Watson are on a camping trip. In the middle of the night Holmes wakes up and gives Dr. Watson a nudge. "Watson" he says, "look up in the sky and tell me what you see."

"I see millions of stars, Holmes," says Watson.

"And what do you conclude from that, Watson?"

Watson thinks for a moment. "Well," he says, "astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow... What does it tell you, Holmes?"

"Watson, you idiot! Someone has stolen our tent!”

Tengu_temp
2013-10-21, 04:02 PM
Dear Tengu,

I disagree in turn. What is wisdom without knowledge? A person can hardly be said to be wise if they don't know anything.

"What should we do, wise old man?"
"I don't…know…"

Kind of a contradiction, no?


Actually, no. There are whole philosophies that focus on obtaining wisdom without obtaining knowledge. The wise man on a mountain, who speaks only in riddles that seem to make no sense at first but actually tell you exactly what you're supposed to do, is the most common character type that embodies this. There's no contradiction.

Now, usually both intelligent and wise people have some degree of knowledge, and probably pretty high one too. But knowledge is not intelligence, and it's not wisdom.

Donnadogsoth
2013-10-21, 07:36 PM
Actually, no. There are whole philosophies that focus on obtaining wisdom without obtaining knowledge. The wise man on a mountain, who speaks only in riddles that seem to make no sense at first but actually tell you exactly what you're supposed to do, is the most common character type that embodies this. There's no contradiction.

Now, usually both intelligent and wise people have some degree of knowledge, and probably pretty high one too. But knowledge is not intelligence, and it's not wisdom.

I don't know what you mean, Tengu. The wise man on the mountain who speaks only in riddles obviously, by your example, knew what you were supposed to do. Or, are you saying that there are people who can give useful advice to others, without understanding their own advice themselves?

Donnadogsoth

Donnadogsoth
2013-10-21, 07:55 PM
Only because you're conflating two kinds of knowledge here that aren't the same. There is a difference between knowing 'how to do something' and knowing 'what should I do?'. The difference is that the former is independent from the self - a robot could 'know' that as much as a person, and the answer does not change. In the latter case, it is more about being self aware - questions like 'what would make me happy?' don't have absolute formal answers.

The separation is that one is analytic and the other is intuitive.

Again, the difference here is that one type of 'knowledge' can basically be externalized. You can tell someone else or learn from someone else 'in this kind of terrain, fight this way' or 'this is how you solve a quadratic equation'. The problems and solutions - the knowledge - is distinct from an understanding of the self and one's relationship with the world.

But when you ask what leads to a bad decision, thats generally a lack of awareness of how something will affect you or the others around you. Like in the case of the stereotypical high Int/low Wis character, they come up with 'great ideas' (solutions to difficult problems) but lack a real awareness of the possible consequences of implementing those ideas (that solution will also kill the user; make bears go extinct; whatever).

Dear Nich,

I’m not sure there is that much practical difference between the types of knowledge you describe. Knowing how to do something is an if-then. If you want to achieve X, do Y. Knowing what should you do is also an if-then. If you want to achieve X, do Y. “If you want to be happy, then do this”.

I accept a wise person will generally be expected to possess profound knowledge of human self-awareness and his relationship to the All, maybe even to the near exclusion of mundanities, but, it still comes down to procedures. You ask the wise man how to do something, and, if he knows, he’s wiser than you.

Donnadogsoth

NichG
2013-10-21, 09:26 PM
Dear Nich,

I’m not sure there is that much practical difference between the types of knowledge you describe. Knowing how to do something is an if-then. If you want to achieve X, do Y. Knowing what should you do is also an if-then. If you want to achieve X, do Y. “If you want to be happy, then do this”.


The practical difference is that a person (or a character) may be very good at the former kind, but very bad at the latter kind (or vice versa). Several examples have been given in this thread so far.

The purpose of stats is to model variations in characters; I could just name a single stat 'competence' that determines 'how generally successful will a character be?', or I could break that down into different ways to be competent 'physical might, surviving things, agility, force of personality, analytical ability, self-awareness'.



I accept a wise person will generally be expected to possess profound knowledge of human self-awareness and his relationship to the All, maybe even to the near exclusion of mundanities, but, it still comes down to procedures. You ask the wise man how to do something, and, if he knows, he’s wiser than you.

Donnadogsoth

So a practical difference is, for example, if you asked an intelligent-but-not-wise person 'how do I solve this differential equation?', then either they know, or more likely they are able to formulate a plan to research the question and obtain an answer quickly, as well as verify the accuracy of that answer, even if they know very little intrinsically about the subject. Given a specific problem to solve, they can pursue a solution effectively.

If you asked the same person 'what should I do with my life?' they're not really going to be able to do much to help you. Both are 'questions' and may in fact have specific 'right' answers (though in the second case, I would suggest anyone claiming to know it probably doesn't), but being able to answer them well requires very different competencies. An intelligent person might be able to say 'these 10 cultures believe these are the various things that are important in life' but it takes a wise person to recognize something about the person they're talking to and figure out the answer that will best help them (which, if we've getting very esoteric, may not even be a truth, but rather something whose falsehood points them in the right direction).

Donnadogsoth
2013-10-22, 08:31 PM
Dear Nich,

I see what you’re saying, and it’s tempting to agree to it, but I prefer to redefine the same situation as intelligence-as-knowledge-gatherer, versus knowledge already gathered. I might term a person who possess profound knowledge, such as how to answer life-questions, as wise, but I wouldn’t immediately create a wisdom stat. I suppose I could call wisdom a stat or a skill, and the same with intelligence, so it depends on what appears to work best. But, I don’t think you’ve overturned my basic assertion that the substance of both INT and WIS is knowledge, even though I agree that the former is associated with less profound, and the latter more profound, knowledge. Do we see eye to eye or am I misunderstanding you?

Donnadogsoth

NichG
2013-10-22, 10:23 PM
Dear Nich,

I see what you’re saying, and it’s tempting to agree to it, but I prefer to redefine the same situation as intelligence-as-knowledge-gatherer, versus knowledge already gathered. I might term a person who possess profound knowledge, such as how to answer life-questions, as wise, but I wouldn’t immediately create a wisdom stat. I suppose I could call wisdom a stat or a skill, and the same with intelligence, so it depends on what appears to work best. But, I don’t think you’ve overturned my basic assertion that the substance of both INT and WIS is knowledge, even though I agree that the former is associated with less profound, and the latter more profound, knowledge. Do we see eye to eye or am I misunderstanding you?

Donnadogsoth

Well I haven't really been addressing your use of the term 'knowledge' because I think you're using/understanding the word differently than I would, so I've been trying to avoid getting into semantics and rather trying to address the substantive things.

To me, 'knowledge' very specifically refers to concrete things that you 'know', rather than the ability to reason. I don't get the impression that you're using it in the same way, so its hard for me to say whether or not I've addressed any of your points with regard to 'knowledge' as substance without understanding more clearly what the actual boundaries of 'knowledge' are to you.

tomandtish
2013-10-23, 12:01 PM
I remember a pretty good one (probably wrongly, but here goes)


Intelligence tells you how to build a nuclear bomb.

Wisdom tells you that detonating it is a bad idea.

Charisma lets you convince people you'll do it anyway if they don't meet your demands.

Ian Malcom (Jurassic Park) sums it up nicely when discussing cloning dinosaurs:

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could (INT), they didn't stop to think if they should (WIS)".

Jay R
2013-10-23, 05:10 PM
Intelligence tells you two ways to build a factory.
Wisdom tells you which way will cause the least pollution and carbon footprint.
Virtue tells you to build it that way.


Intelligence tells you the most effective way to clean out the sewers.
Wisdom tells you that you won't enjoy it.
Charisma lets you convince somebody else to do it.

Donnadogsoth
2013-10-23, 09:51 PM
Well I haven't really been addressing your use of the term 'knowledge' because I think you're using/understanding the word differently than I would, so I've been trying to avoid getting into semantics and rather trying to address the substantive things.

To me, 'knowledge' very specifically refers to concrete things that you 'know', rather than the ability to reason. I don't get the impression that you're using it in the same way, so its hard for me to say whether or not I've addressed any of your points with regard to 'knowledge' as substance without understanding more clearly what the actual boundaries of 'knowledge' are to you.

Dear Nich,

I would consider the ability to reason to be something that is acquired knowledge. Love would be another example: people learn to love other people. So, I would deem nearly any profound aspect of the mind to be something learned, excepting talents or predispositions, such as an hypothetical predisposition for learning logic, for example, or compassion, or music. I think that would be innate knowledge: knowing how to learn a thing.

Donnadogsoth

Donnadogsoth
2013-10-23, 09:53 PM
Intelligence tells you two ways to build a factory.
Wisdom tells you which way will cause the least pollution and carbon footprint.
Virtue tells you to build it that way.


Intelligence tells you the most effective way to clean out the sewers.
Wisdom tells you that you won't enjoy it.
Charisma lets you convince somebody else to do it.

That's such a good idea--the addition of Virtue as a characteristic--that I might add it to my game. Thanks, Jay.

Donnadogsoth

TheFamilarRaven
2013-10-24, 05:44 AM
You can with a high INT and ranks in Knowledge (Religion)...

Since no one has really commented on this. Knowledge Religion does NOT tell you what your deity or any other deity would do. It's merely a collection of FACTS about the history, and general goals of a deity or cult, that you recall through study and memorization, which definately
falls within the domain of Intelligence

Actually utilizing this knowledge to figure out what Boccob would do if say .. he has a magic rod that would allow him control the Tarrasque, is NOT covered by Knowledge Religion, that would consist of a VERY high (probably) Sense Motive check, which is Wisdom.

In short ...

Intelligence vs. Wisdom is pretty well defined in DnD. I suggest reading page 8 of the Player's handbook if you think otherwise. and I would go as far to say Intelligence and Wisdom are separate in real life as wel

Jay R
2013-10-24, 09:11 AM
That's such a good idea--the addition of Virtue as a characteristic--that I might add it to my game. Thanks, Jay.

Donnadogsoth

Pendragon includes all the Virtues - and all the Vices with a complementary score (20 - the virtue score). If you have a Courage of 13, for instance, you have a Cowardice of 7.

Suppose you stand up to a large force of ogres. You get a check on Courage, which might make your Courage go up and your Cowardice go down. But fleeing them could have the opposite effect.

DefKab
2013-10-24, 09:41 AM
I don't know what you mean, Tengu. The wise man on the mountain who speaks only in riddles obviously, by your example, knew what you were supposed to do. Or, are you saying that there are people who can give useful advice to others, without understanding their own advice themselves?

Donnadogsoth

Well, the point of the character is that the hero can't tell whether the old man knew he was giving solid advice. The wise man never tells. He may not know what his own advice means. That's the point.

Donnadogsoth
2013-10-24, 09:59 AM
Well, the point of the character is that the hero can't tell whether the old man knew he was giving solid advice. The wise man never tells. He may not know what his own advice means. That's the point.

Dear DK,

Do you think such a person could be? Can anyone think of a real-life example of such a person?

Donnadogsoth

SethoMarkus
2013-10-24, 11:16 AM
Dear Nich,

I would consider the ability to reason to be something that is acquired knowledge. Love would be another example: people learn to love other people. So, I would deem nearly any profound aspect of the mind to be something learned, excepting talents or predispositions, such as an hypothetical predisposition for learning logic, for example, or compassion, or music. I think that would be innate knowledge: knowing how to learn a thing.

Donnadogsoth

There is no such thing as "in-born talent". Talents are learned, just like any other skill. However, prior learned behaviors and external reinforcements/punishments may subtly influence an individual's predisposition towards a talent/skill. No one has natural artistic talent; it is all earned through practice and determination. However, a child that is encouraged to draw when they are young and whose parents support their drawing habits will be more talented at art later in life. Likewise, take someone who is currently terrible at drawing (or any other skill) and make them practice, and they will improve and eventually become talented.

So, really, this leaves nothing but the Int stat under your definition of Knowledge. I'm not saying that as a bad thing or wrong, simply that everything is "learned" and therefore, according to your definition, knowledge.

NichG
2013-10-24, 01:05 PM
See, I'd argue that in a game like D&D, the 'stats' are specifically talking about inborn talent, whereas skills are explicitly learned things. Originally, your stats were set for the character's life - only since 3ed can they increase intrinsically as you gain levels - so it would make sense for Int to be 'one's innate talent for book-learning' and Wis to be 'one's innate talent for intuition' and so on.

That said, I think the disagreement here isn't about inborn versus learned talents. I think it has to do with a difference in understanding about what the term 'knowledge' entails. Basically, I disagree with the statement 'all mental ability is a form of knowledge', because I recognize a difference between possessing 'facts', having the ability to manipulate them in order to reach novel conclusions (reasoning), and having emotional awareness of how things will impact you and others (intuition). I'm not even saying these are the exhaustive list of distinct kinds of mental ability.

Here's a concrete, real-life example. I 'know' how to add two numbers. On paper, I can eventually add any two numbers I have the patience to write down.

In my head, however, there is a limit to how many digits I can simultaneously keep track of, which eventually limits my ability to apply my knowledge (how to add two numbers). Even though I know how to add, I lack a fundamental ability to add arbitrarily large numbers. This isn't because I lack knowledge of addition, its because my working memory has a finite size - it is a distinct characteristic of me from my learned knowledge.

The two things aren't completely unrelated; in principle, I can employ a mental version of compression to express a long number more simply, and use that to do mental arithmetic that I would otherwise not be able to. For example, adding 3998 and 4004 I could notice that its the same as adding 4000 to 4000, but with 2 left over.

Eventually I will run into the limits of my mental capacity even using such tricks. So this is a form of mental ability distinct from knowledge (I wouldn't say that working memory length has anything to do with wisdom, but I just want to show that there are 'different kinds of mental ability').

Slipperychicken
2013-10-24, 01:14 PM
Pendragon includes all the Virtues - and all the Vices with a complementary score (20 - the virtue score). If you have a Courage of 13, for instance, you have a Cowardice of 7.

Suppose you stand up to a large force of ogres. You get a check on Courage, which might make your Courage go up and your Cowardice go down. But fleeing them could have the opposite effect.

I read through Pendragon 5e a few times. Wasn't that virtue called Valorous? :smallconfused:


Intelligence tells you two ways to build a factory.
Wisdom tells you which way will cause the least pollution and carbon footprint.
Virtue tells you to build it that way.


"Market research" tells you that there's a growing market for green products which your firm can take advantage of. Your Knowledge (Business) skill tells you that environmentally-friendly facilities will ultimately gain you positioning, goodwill, and can even turn out to be cheaper than the polluting alternative.

EDIT: So yeah, it's not always virtue.

Donnadogsoth
2013-10-24, 04:05 PM
There is no such thing as "in-born talent". Talents are learned, just like any other skill. However, prior learned behaviors and external reinforcements/punishments may subtly influence an individual's predisposition towards a talent/skill. No one has natural artistic talent; it is all earned through practice and determination. However, a child that is encouraged to draw when they are young and whose parents support their drawing habits will be more talented at art later in life. Likewise, take someone who is currently terrible at drawing (or any other skill) and make them practice, and they will improve and eventually become talented.

So, really, this leaves nothing but the Int stat under your definition of Knowledge. I'm not saying that as a bad thing or wrong, simply that everything is "learned" and therefore, according to your definition, knowledge.

Dear Setho,

I'm unclear of your meaning, do you mean INT is not learned or is learned, just like everything else?

Although what you say seems true, I'm not sure. What about "idiot savants"--people with severe intellectual and/or social retardation but who are prodigious at math or music? Surely no parent creates a savant...?

Donnadogsoth

Garimeth
2013-10-24, 05:01 PM
Basically, I disagree with the statement 'all mental ability is a form of knowledge', because I recognize a difference between possessing 'facts', having the ability to manipulate them in order to reach novel conclusions (reasoning), and having emotional awareness of how things will impact you and others (intuition). I'm not even saying these are the exhaustive list of distinct kinds of mental ability.

This is the best summation of them, in game terms.

Some of these discussion are more into what is the nature of intelligence to beging with, and what is inate and what is learned the game is an abstraction.

In GAME terms:


Your STATS are innate, as mentioned previously, prior to 3e they were fixed.
Your SKILLS are learned. As you progress you spen points and invest in them. in other games they represent learned knowledge over the course of your life (backgrounds, non weapon profs.)


Wisdom can best be likened to common sense, self-awareness, perception, intuition, and willpower. These are too many attributes for a single stat! When we talk about these it helps to discuss them seperately. Lets do it by looking at some WIS based stats and discussing what is innate, and what is learned.

Sense Motive: Inate - emotional intelligence and empathy (these can be developed, but - I propose -not learned). Learned: body language, conversation techniques.

Spot: Inate - good eyesight. Learned: what to look for, trends, common hiding places, terrain features.

So here we see the two most common WIS skills are only very loosely even connected with WIS!

The problem with over-analyzing wisdom is that it is trying to be too many things. Because perception and self-awareness have NOTHING to do with willpower, and very little to do with intuition.

Jay R
2013-10-25, 09:30 AM
"Wisdom" is a gaming term for how well you can do a set of abilities listed in the game rules.

[Back in original D&D, I once suggested that "Intelligence" meant "magic ability" and "Wisdom" meant "clerical ability", since a character's true intelligence and wisdom had much more to do with how well the player made game decisions than with any die roll.]

Donnadogsoth
2013-10-25, 11:34 AM
See, I'd argue that in a game like D&D, the 'stats' are specifically talking about inborn talent, whereas skills are explicitly learned things. Originally, your stats were set for the character's life - only since 3ed can they increase intrinsically as you gain levels - so it would make sense for Int to be 'one's innate talent for book-learning' and Wis to be 'one's innate talent for intuition' and so on.

That said, I think the disagreement here isn't about inborn versus learned talents. I think it has to do with a difference in understanding about what the term 'knowledge' entails. Basically, I disagree with the statement 'all mental ability is a form of knowledge', because I recognize a difference between possessing 'facts', having the ability to manipulate them in order to reach novel conclusions (reasoning), and having emotional awareness of how things will impact you and others (intuition). I'm not even saying these are the exhaustive list of distinct kinds of mental ability.

Here's a concrete, real-life example. I 'know' how to add two numbers. On paper, I can eventually add any two numbers I have the patience to write down.

In my head, however, there is a limit to how many digits I can simultaneously keep track of, which eventually limits my ability to apply my knowledge (how to add two numbers). Even though I know how to add, I lack a fundamental ability to add arbitrarily large numbers. This isn't because I lack knowledge of addition, its because my working memory has a finite size - it is a distinct characteristic of me from my learned knowledge.

The two things aren't completely unrelated; in principle, I can employ a mental version of compression to express a long number more simply, and use that to do mental arithmetic that I would otherwise not be able to. For example, adding 3998 and 4004 I could notice that its the same as adding 4000 to 4000, but with 2 left over.

Eventually I will run into the limits of my mental capacity even using such tricks. So this is a form of mental ability distinct from knowledge (I wouldn't say that working memory length has anything to do with wisdom, but I just want to show that there are 'different kinds of mental ability').

Dear Nich,

What other mental abilities would you consider distinct from knowledge? Love, for instance? Intelligence? Learning ability? Charisma? Musical talent? Etc. SethoMarkus argues there is no in-born talent, you argue there is, I'm now on the fence but leaning towards the idea that everything is learned.

Donnadogsoth

Wulfram
2013-10-25, 11:41 AM
The intelligence and wisdom divide is just awkward and should be gotten rid of

I'd cut down the mental stats to two, Intelligence and Willpower. Splitting up the Wisdom and Charisma stuff between the two.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-25, 11:45 AM
Just as a note: everyone here would benefit from reading "Thinking: Fast and Slow". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow)

Long story short: human mind indeed does have two modes of thinking, which fit the definitions of "intelligence" and "wisdom" quite well.

NichG
2013-10-25, 01:21 PM
Dear Nich,

What other mental abilities would you consider distinct from knowledge? Love, for instance? Intelligence? Learning ability? Charisma? Musical talent? Etc. SethoMarkus argues there is no in-born talent, you argue there is, I'm now on the fence but leaning towards the idea that everything is learned.

Donnadogsoth

I can't really provide an exhaustive list of the components of human intelligence. Is musical talent actually a distinct part of the brain? Maybe, maybe not, its not something I really feel like I'm on solid ground to speculate on.

My guess is that things aren't quite as compartmentalized as would be convenient for something like D&D - if a person has a talent for language it may bleed over into music, and maybe a talent for music bleeds over into math, and so on.

On the matter of in-born stuff, I think there's two points to be made. One point is whether or not there are abilities that cannot be acquired, and the other point is whether there are distinctions between different types of 'acquired' ability.

For the first point, I think there's a continuum of these things. In human development there are particular age ranges where certain abilities develop, after which they're more or less frozen into whatever state they ended up in. Language is much more easily learned as a child than as an adult. You can learn new languages as an adult, but the process seems to be qualitatively different from how children learn language.

For a more extreme example, I have to go to animal studies: even vision seems to have an 'acquired' component in that animals which have been raised in total darkness lose the ability to interpret visual images, even when they are later removed from the dark environment. There is some point in their development past which their brain can no longer learn to adapt to visual inputs. Beyond that point, their visual acuity might as well be seen as an 'inborn' talent in the sense that it cannot readily be altered.

All of that aside, there is certainly the possibility for there to be 'qualities' possessed by a person that are not easily learned/unlearned. A brain injury will directly affect a person's ability to perform certain tasks; it will certainly impact their rate of learning, if nothing else. It is possible to lose the ability to speak, to 'pay attention' to things in your visual field, to remember things for short or long-term, to map objects to words, to visualize geometry, etc. Much of what we've learned about the brain's different functions has been due to observing what happens when those functions are interfered with by physical damage.

Can I go from that to saying 'person X has the genetics to be a great mathematician, while person Y has the genetics to be a great orator'? Not conclusively. While two brains may be driven to by physically different by genetics, its harder to say a-priori how much those differences impact actual performance compared with other (cultural, experiential) factors. That said, I would not be surprised if this has been studied exhaustively, I'm just not familiar enough with the literature to take a strong stance here.

I would say however that not all types of 'acquired' ability are the same, or are even acquired in the same way. Consider the difference between, say, learning to play the piano and memorizing a poem. One uses a good bit of so-called 'muscle memory', and is learned by constant repetition of motions without an explicit awareness of what has been learned. The other can be done by reading the poem a couple of times, or perhaps even just once, but when you remember the poem you can call it to mind - in other words, its something that you explicitly 'know' and you can be aware of that knowledge.

Slipperychicken
2013-10-25, 02:25 PM
I'd cut down the mental stats to two, Intelligence and Willpower. Splitting up the Wisdom and Charisma stuff between the two.

Shadowrun seemed to handle mental stats pretty well, by basically splitting Wisdom in half and having many rolls use a combination of two stats (for example, physical illusions are resisted with Logic+Intuition, and Logic and Intuition both grant skill-points). It seems fairly intuitive which stat does what.

They had
Willpower (Represents the strength of one's resolve, resist spells, fear effects, and intimidation).
Logic (Represents analytical intelligence and learned/explicit knowledge. Governs academic knowledge, mechanics, programming, etc).
Intuition (Represents tacit knowledge and instinctual understanding. Handles perception, judge intentions, intuitive knowledge, and contributes to combat. Helps resist illusions).
Charisma (Represents the power of one's personality. Governs people skills, negotiation, and some magical stuff).