Wisdom in the digital age: a conceptual and practical framework for understanding and cultivating cyber-wisdom

Abstract

The internet presents not just opportunities but also risks that range, to name a few, from online abuse and misinformation to the polarisation of public debate. Given the increasingly digital nature of our societies, these risks make it essential for users to learn how to wisely use digital technologies as part of a more holistic approach to promoting human flourishing. However, insofar as they are exacerbated by both the affordances and the political economy of the internet, this article argues that a new understanding of wisdom that is germane to the digital age is needed. As a result, we propose a framework for conceptualising what we call cyber-wisdom, and how this can be cultivated via formal education, in ways that are grounded in neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics and that build on three prominent existing models of wisdom. The framework, according to which cyber-wisdom is crucial to navigating online risks and opportunities through the deployment of character virtues necessary for flourishing online, suggests that cyber-wisdom consists of four components: cyber-wisdom literacy, cyber-wisdom reasoning, cyber-wisdom self-reflection, cyber-wisdom motivation. Unlike the models on which it builds, the framework accounts for the specificity of the digital age and is both conceptual and practical. On the one hand, each component has conceptual implications for what it means to be wise in the digital age. On the other hand, informed by character education literature and practice, it has practical implications for how to cultivate cyber-wisdom in the classroom through teaching methods that match its different components.

The role of wisdom in navigating social media paradoxes: Implications for consumers, firms, and public policy

“…Likewise, we advocate for bringing wisdom into the public discourse and prioritizing it at a national level. We present multiple ways in which public policy makers can support the application of wisdom to address consumer challenges with social media, and, consistent with Polizzi and Harrison (2022), we posit that the same can be done for other pressing and complex digital technology problems. Wisdom theory can be also useful in exploring tensions outside of digital technology, such as the conflict between individual and societal interests when pushing forward an agenda for sustainable consumption or in balancing individual freedoms and public health in the context of mask and vaccine mandates during a pandemic (Schneider & Leonard, 2022).…”

“…While attempts to identify the major components of wisdom provide focus, others have underscored that wisdom is also domain‐specific and nuanced (Fowers, 2003; Grossmann, 2017; Luchs et al, 2021; Luchs & Mick, 2018). For example, Polizzi and Harrison (2022) have highlighted the need for a domain‐specific understanding of wisdom amid the proliferation of internet‐driven opportunities and threats. As such, our identification of wise practices also reflects other recent theories and measures of wisdom that are relevant to the current social media context.…”

Cultivating writerly virtues: Critical human elements of multimodal writing in the age of artificial intelligence

“…We have argued that human writing is virtuous and multimodal, and that humans can use AI tools to support this writing. Tying these arguments together, we suggest that good writing simultaneously requires and aims toward phronesis , or “practical wisdom, [which] functions as a meta‐virtue that enables individuals, through a process of intellectual reasoning, to choose the right course of action” (Polizzi & Harrison, 2022, p. 15). Practicing virtue requires practical reasoning about what makes sense in each situation with others rather than following a particular set of rules.…”

Problemas tecno-epistémicos de la enseñanza online

“…[E1] Reducción del umbral de precisión del conocimiento de las operaciones algorítmicas: el usuario no puede conocer todos los elementos secretos del filtrado, pero tampoco esto es necesario, siempre y cuando se percate de que las burbujas y los sesgos son opciones ante las que debe anteponer una actitud responsable (Polizzi y Harrison 2022).…”

“…Bruggeman et al 2021;Obexer 2019;Hamilton 2016) no han facilitado precisamente avanzar una crítica reflexiva frente a la agenda educativa-empresarial sin encontrar resistencias. Parece claro que la automatización tecnológica de la enseñanza universitaria se consolida según dos tipos de intereses directos: el económico, basado en la imposición de ciertos ajustes tecnológicos a la comunidad académica (Polizzi y Harrison 2022), y el educativo, el cual procura integrar la tecnología en la vida académica 2 . La combinación de ambos ha dado lugar a una agenda automatizadora de la enseñanza con resultados dispares y no siempre alentadores.…”