"And God said to Solomon, Because this was in thine heart, and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge my people, over whom I have made thee king:  wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like" ( II Chronicles 1:11,12).

King Solomon in his request to God did not ask for riches, wealth, honour, lives of his enemies, or a long life. What he asked for was wisdom and knowledge for the purpose of ruling. Though he asked for wisdom and knowledge only, he received all that he did not ask for more than any kings both before and after him. This event is a perpetual reminder that wisdom and knowledge is above and beyond gold, glory, and physical life longitude and yet encompasses all of them. It is also a reminder that wisdom and knowledge is a vital component in the management of peoples' lives.

As a Counseling Psychologist, the author's interest in the domain of wisdom and knowledge is inclined towards an empirical study that is applicable to the challenges in daily life. What is the definition of wisdom? Though there are many definitions and descriptions of wisdom, the author would like to utilize the definition of Baltes & Smith (1990, p. 95), that wisdom is an "expert-level knowledge in the fundamental pragmatics of life." But the author would be interpreting the definition differently within the context of this article and in relation to other associated studies. There are two key points to be noted in the definition namely, 1) Wisdom is expert-level knowledge; and 2) Wisdom covers the fundamental pragmatics of life.

Wisdom is expert-level knowledge

What is expert-level knowledge? To understand what expert-level knowledge is take an example in the field of art. An expert and a novice's art evaluation, perception and experience would differ significantly. In an interesting study entitled: "Knowledge-Based Assessment of Expertise in the Arts: Exploring Aesthetic Fluency", the Aesthetic fluency scale of Smith and Smith (2006) that evaluates art fluency and expertise was examined in relation to  "fluid intelligence and the Big Five dimensions of personality" (Silvia, 2007). The findings from the study shows the following: 1) Participants who were considered as experts were not generally smarter; 2) They did not have an art-related college degree; and 3) Openness to experience were associated with aesthetic interests, curiosity, unconventionality, and creativity (McCrae, 2007), that predicted aesthetic fluency or expertise.

What are the implications of the above study? Expert-level knowledge is not necessarily a reference to people who possess college or university degrees. But people with Expert-level knowledge are those who open to experiences like aesthetic interests, curiosity, unconventionality, and creativity. The key words here are openness to experiences. Do you want wisdom and knowledge? Do you want to have Expert-level knowledge?  If the answers to all the questions are yes, then you need to have openness to experiences. What is the opposite of openness to experiences? Have you heard and understood the word dogmatism? Look around you! You can see dogmatism in people, beliefs, and behaviors in every domain of life regardless of age, gender, nationality, social, economic, cultural, religious and political beliefs. What are the symptoms and indicators of dogmatism?

Symptoms or indicators of dogmatism.

There is an assumption that dogmatism is found more among the religious domain. The author calls the foregoing assumption a misconception as dogmatism is found in all domains even those that claim to be atheistic (Ellis, 2000). Among the many symptoms or indicators of dogmatism, the most common and outstanding ones are prejudice and discrimination.

What is prejudice? Prejudice is the latent "negative attitude" towards someone, something or a group (Weiten & Lloyd, 2006). Why causes prejudice? Rsin & Spenser (1997) have shown in their studies that prejudice is a form of affirmation and defense (by derogating others) of an individual or group's self-image that has been threatened by a perceived negative feedback.

What does this mean? It means that an individual or group that practices prejudice perceives a threat to its self-image that is triggered by a negative feedback (whether real or perceived). In order to bolster their self-image, they treat those who are perceived as a threat in derogatory manner. What about discrimination? Discrimination is the overt unfair behaviors, towards those who are seen as a threat. One salient point to be noted is that all who practice discriminations have prejudice. But not all who have prejudice practice discriminations (Weiten & Lloyd, 2006). A general observation of the foregoing salient point is that profit-minded businesspersons especially in a multi-cultural business environment avoid discrimination even though they may be prejudiced against a particular ethnic group. The profit factor seems to restraint discriminatory behaviors even when prejudice is present.

Dogmatism has to do with belief-disbelief systems.

Most forms of dogmatism have to do with belief-disbelief systems. Belief systems are part of humanity even before conception to after physical death. As with dogmatism, belief-disbelief systems exist regardless of age, gender, nationality, social, economic, cultural, religious and political beliefs. It is the belief-disbelief systems that are part of your decision making processes that determines your latent motivations and overt behaviors that may eventually be beneficial or harmful (Clay, 1996, pp. 1. 48). It is not so much of whether you believe or disbelieve something that has impact on your life and on those around you.  It is more vital under which category (open or closed systems) that your belief-disbelief systems have their foundations.

Open or closed systems.

Why is an open or closed system foundational to your belief-disbelief systems? And what difference does it make? To answer the first question, the key word is "absolutism" (Ellis, 1983). Closed systems have absolutism as their core component in which a belief-disbelief system is totally rigid, inflexible and would not allow any form of modifications or changes. It is fixed permanently in mental and psychological concrete. The associated problems related to absolutism are like prejudice and discrimination (Ellis, 2000). Open systems do not practice absolutism and therefore are not rigid, inflexible and would allow for modifications or changes.

Thus, the position of your belief-disbelief systems in open or closed systems will determine your own behavior and how it relates to those around you. So if indicators like prejudice or discrimination is noticeable, you can be assured of the existence of a closed system. The open and closed system also determines the manner you are able to: 1) distinguish information from the source of information, and 2) evaluate information and source of information on their "intrinsic merits" (Rokeach, 1960, p. 396).       An example of the inability to distinguish information from the source of information can be demonstrated by this behavior. Students who refuse to learn from a teacher because the teacher is not from the same ethnic group. An example of the inability to evaluate information and source of information on their intrinsic merits can be demonstrated by this behavior. Judges who evaluate validity and reliability of evidences based on the societal and political standings of witnesses.

Wisdom covers the fundamental pragmatics of life

The author has already shown that in order to develop wisdom and knowledge, one have to be open to experiences in all domains of life. And openness means that one's belief-disbelief systems are to have an open system as its foundation. An open system will distinguish information from the source of information, and 2) evaluate information and source of information on their intrinsic or internal merits and values. It will not be rigid, inflexible, but would allow for modifications or changes in beliefs, decisions, and behavior. And this type of wisdom and openness to experiences covers all of the fundamental pragmatics of life. What does it mean that wisdom and openness to experiences covers all of the fundamental pragmatics of life? Before understanding what it means that wisdom and openness to experiences covers all of the fundamental pragmatics of life, let us begin by understanding the pragmatics of understanding our friends, family members, relative, and lovers.

Take for example another prevalent misconception that we know a lot about other people including our friends, family members, relative, and lovers. Is this true? It has been proven by researchers that due to reasons like "selectivity biases in attention, interpretation, and recall; the use of misleading heuristics; and a failure to consider the extent to which others' behaviors are situationally constrained" (Nisbett & Ross, 1980) plus our personal limitations that are disregarded in overestimation of our accuracy in perceiving others are prone to errors and wrong judgments (Dunning, Griffin, Milojkovic, & Ross, 1990; Gill, Swann, &   Silvera, 1998; Swann & Gill, 1997).

This awareness of the prone to errors and wrong judgments in the perceptions of persons led Gill & Swann (2004) to study in support of an earlier study in 1984 by W.B. Swann that argued that "perceivers achieve substantial pragmatic accuracy - accuracy that facilitates the achievement of relationship-specific interaction goals - in their social relationships" (Gill & Swann, 2004).  A simplified description of their findings may be phrased in this manner. Comprehensive perception of a person in all their complexities is unlikely to be achieved by any perceiver. So perceivers utilize pragmatic accuracy which is basically the seeking and construction of conceivable truths about the target person which would assist in relationship building. But the seeking and construction of conceivable truths about the target person is dependent on the quality of their interrelationships.

Mr. A has two close interrelationships, one with his son and another with his wife. It is unlikely that Mr. A might fully perceive or understand both of them comprehensively. So he seeks and constructs helpful and believable truths to sufficiently manage his relationships with each of them separately. His seeking and construction of helpful and believable truths about each of them is dependent on the quality of relationships (i.e., closeness) he has with each of them. . Mr. A is utilizing pragmatic accuracy.

Just as we cannot comprehensively understand all the details and complexities of the individuals that we assume we know as being close to us. We are likely only to understand the basic practicalities of life. The practice of wisdom and openness to experiences utilizes a "tacit knowledge" (Sternberg, 1998) to manage the basic practicalities of life. What is tacit knowledge? In summary, tacit knowledge (i.e., practical intelligence) which is acquired rather than learned knows how to behave in every particular situation to attain a desired objective.

In order to utilize tacit knowledge, the criteria of wisdom and openness to experiences is an antecedent component that cannot be ignored. Take for an example, a bus driver who suddenly finds himself in a situation in which he is the only one around and there is no time to call the emergency services to deliver a premature birth on his bus. If he is wise and open to experience, he will utilize whatever practical intelligence he might possess to assist in the delivery despite any feelings of inadequacy or fear that he might be experiencing. The following summary will assist in reminding the readers the perspective of wisdom and knowledge that has been presented in this article.

Wisdom and knowledge is reflected in openness to experiences that utilizes acquired tacit knowledge (i.e., practical intelligence) to enable individuals or groups to know how to behave in every particular situation to attain the desired objectives without having latent prejudices and practicing overt discriminations.

The author would like to conclude by leaving this self-repot questionnaire for the reader's assessment of themselves and for reflecting upon their own answers.

Self-Report Questionnaire

1.      Do I consider myself to be intelligent or wise?

2.      Do I consider myself as an authority?

a.      If the answer is yes, am I an authority that knows it all?

b.      How do I justify my know- it - all claim?

c.       Can I be wrong in my justification?

d.      Do I still need to learn and grow?

3.      Do I consider myself to be religious?

a.      If the answer is yes, am I better than others?

b.      How do I justify my claim?

c.       Can I be wrong in my justification?

4.      Do I consider myself to be spiritual?

a.      If the answer is yes, am I better than others?

b.      How do I justify my claim?

c.       Can I be wrong in my justification?

5.      Am I open to experiences in all of life's domains?

a.      If the answer is no, why am I not open?

b.      If the answer is yes, to what kind of experiences I am open to?

6.      Am I dogmatic?

7.      How do I justify my dogmatism?

8.      Can I be wrong in my justification of my dogmatism?

9.      Do I harbor latent prejudices?

10.  How do I justify my prejudices?

11.  Can I be wrong in my justification of my prejudices?

12.  Do I practice discrimination?

13.  How do I justify my discriminations?

14.  Can I be wrong in my justification of my discriminations?

15.  Do I have absolute beliefs or values?

16.  How do I justify my absolute beliefs or values?

17.  Can I be wrong in my justification of my absolute beliefs or values?

18.  Do I comprehensively understand myself?

19.  Do I comprehensively understand those around me?

20.  Do I need to change, modify or revamp my thinking?

a.      If the answer is no, why not?

b.      If the answer is yes, to what kind of thinking do I need to change, modify or revamp?

21.  Do I need to change, modify or revamp my behaviors?

a.      If the answer is no, why not?

b.      If the answer is yes, to what kind of behaviors do I need to change, modify or revamp?

22.  Are all my answers to the above questions truthful and sincere?

a.      If the answer is no, why not?

i.      Do I want to re-answer the questions again?

ii.      If I do not want to re-answer, what are the reasons?

b.      If the answer is yes, are you sure?

i.      Do I want to re-consider my answer?

ii.      If I do not want to reconsider, what are the reasons?

REFERENCE

Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (1990). The psychology of wisdom and its ontogenesis. In R. J. Steinberg (Ed.),Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development(pp. 87-120). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Clay, R. A. (1996, August). Psychologists' faith in religion continues to grow.APA Monitor, 27,p. 48.

Dunning, D., Griffin, D. W. Milojkovic, J. D., & Ross, L. (1990). The overconfidence effect in social prediction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,568–581.

Ellis, A. (1983).The case against religiosity.New York: Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy.

Ellis, A. (2000). Can Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) Be Effectively Used With People Who Have Devout Beliefs in God and Religion?Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 2000, Vol. 31, No. 1, 29-33.

Gill, M. J., Swann, W. B., Jr., & Silvera, D. H. (1998). On the genesis of confidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,1101– 1114.

Gill, M. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr., (2004). On What It Means To Know Someone: A Matter Of Pragmatics.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2004, Vol. 86, No. 3, 405–418

McCrae, R. R. (2007). Aesthetic chills as a universal marker of openness to experience.Motivation and Emotion, 31,5–11.

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980).Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Paul J. Silvia (2007). Knowledge-Based Assessment of Expertise in the Arts: Exploring Aesthetic Fluency.Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2007, Vol. 1, No. 4, 247–249.

Rokeacit, M.The open and closed mind.New York: Basic Books, 1960.

Rsin, S, & S, S.J., Prejudice as Self-image Maintenance: Affirming the Self Through Derogating Others, 1997, Vol. 73, No. 1, 31-44.

Smith, L. F., & Smith, J. K. (2006). The nature and growth of aesthetic fluency. In P. Locher, C. Martindale, & L. Dorfman (Eds.),New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts(pp. 47–58). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom.Review of General Psychology, 2,347–365.

Swann, W. B., Jr., & Gill, M. J. (1997). Confidence and accuracy in person perception: Do we know what we think we know about our relationship partners?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,747–757.

Weiten, W., & Lloyd, M. A. (2006).Psychology applied to modern life: Adjustment in the 21st century. CA: Thomson and Wadsworth.