What’s the Difference between Intelligence, Wisdom and Cleverness?

The three concepts, intelligence, wisdom and cleverness, have some overlap because they all draw from our ability to learn. The following definition of intelligence, given by psychologist Linda Gottfredson in 1997, has achieved wide consensus among members of the American Psychological Association (APA):

Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience. It is not merely book-learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings, “catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.

Intelligence is related to neural efficiency, and the ability of the brain to process information, see patterns, and formulate abstract concepts. Of the three concepts, intelligence is the most amenable to objective measurement. IQ tests provide the best measure of intelligence that we have, although they are accurate only within a restricted range of IQ’s and fail to measure all dimensions of mental acuity.

Wisdom is a more elusive concept. While the ancient Greeks used the term nous to describe the intelligence defined above, they recognized two kinds of wisdom, sophia and phronesis. Sophia is a subjective or transcendent wisdom manifesting as intuitional understanding, while phronesis is the practical wisdom involved in making prudent judgments. Both elude precise measurement because there is no consensus on exactly what is meant by wisdom–like beauty, we think we know it when we see it. To attempt a measure of wisdom, Robert Sternberg, Professor of Psychology at Cornell University has presented a triarchic model, presenting wisdom as consisting of 3 components:

• analytical intelligence, as manifest in the ability to complete problem-solving tasks, such as those used in traditional intelligence tests.

• synthetic intelligence, the ability to formulate a course of action to deal successfully with novel situations by drawing on existing knowledge and skills.

• Practical intelligence, the ability to adapt to everyday life by drawing on existing knowledge and skills to determine a course of action.

In this model, we observe that analytic and synthetic intelligence, i.e. g (measured as IQ) constitute only two of the three components of wisdom, so a high IQ may be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for wisdom. In order for a Hi-Q person to have wisdom, she would need also to possess what Sternberg calls “practical intelligence.” While he suggests that it is an overarching cognitive capability like g, psychologists generally regard it as a learned domain-specific skill. As Russell Warne observes:

Indeed, the evidence is very scarce that there is any general cognitive ability besides g, though there are many other abilities in Stratum I and Stratum II in both the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC ) and bifactor models [of intelligence].

So, for example, Ben Franklin was a Hi-Q person who applied his superior intellect to study human nature, thereby acquiring the ability to influence people. Paul Frampton, on the other hand, (see: https://www.intelligence-and-iq.com/what-is-an-example-of-a-hi-q-person-who-is-not-wise/ ) applied his Hi-Q mainly to the study of physics, acquiring little understanding of people outside academe, and was therefore vulnerable to an internet scam.

While the triarchic definition is useful in viewing wisdom as high intelligence coupled with some acquired personal skills, the dependence of wisdom on acquiring knowledge means that it varies across domains. For example, Mahatma Ghandi, generally regarded as a wise man in his political battles against the British occupation of India, was a failure as a parent. Believing that character is more important than knowledge, he denied his children a formal education. He was wise in matters of state, but perhaps, not so in matters of parenting.

By contrast, Albert Einstein, recognized that his high intelligence did not transfer into domains where he had little experience. He wisely declined an appointment as Israel’s second President, explaining that he lacked the natural aptitude for the social interaction required in politics.

While some components of intelligence are measurable, the concept of wisdom is somewhat subjective. Most of those to whom we attribute wisdom have been great philosophers, writers, or leaders who have displayed an insight into human nature and the conundrums of human existence. The adages of Socrates and Confucius capture in a flash the lessons that take a lifetime to learn. The insights of Shakespeare and Goethe lay naked the inner motivations of the human psyche that drive us to decisions that later manifest as wise or foolish. Distilling this information into a single insight leads us to conclude that wisdom is high intelligence augmented by an acquired depth of self-knowledge and interpersonal skill. In the absence of this final component, a Hi-Q person, may be nothing more than a Hi-Q person whose exceptional insight is restricted to a specific domain.

Cleverness–what the Ancient Greeks called phronesis–is the vaguest of the three concepts because its measure is purely subjective. Generally, it’s referred to as “street smarts” or the ability to navigate through human relationships with some degree of skill. In the positive sense, it’s related to interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, often called “emotional intelligence.” In the negative sense, it’s associated with manipulative, or cunning Machivellian behavior.

As a recently unemployed executive explained, “Intelligence is knowing how to seduce the boss’s wife, but wisdom is knowing how not to seduce the boss’s wife.” Perhaps cleverness is seducing the boss’s wife after letting him know you have pictures of him with his mistress. Unlike intelligence and wisdom, cleverness is not necessarily a virtue.