Some people think wisdom is a stable and invariable individual disposition. Others view wisdom as deeply embedded in culture, experiences, and situations, and treat these features as mutually making up wisdom. What are the implications of each view for measurement, training, and the fundamental nature of wisdom itself? This chapter reviews evidence concerning the dispositional versus situational approaches to study wisdom. Even though main features of wisdom show some stability, there is also a profound and systematic variability in response to situational demands. By conceptualizing dispositions as a distribution of situation-specific responses, one can integrate dispositional and situational approaches to wisdom. Building on these insights, it is recommended to pay attention to contextual factors in measurement. Insight about contextual factors can also shed light on how to develop interventions for training wisdom.

This chapter delves into the reasons for attending to the cognitive constraints of the political decision maker, whether average citizen or member of the ruling elite. The main focus of our discussion is the concept of bounded rationality and other cognitive strategies that humans have evolved in order to make good enough political decisions, if not optimal ones. The discussion includes a review of many instances where cognitive short cuts, or heuristics, influence decisions by reducing the burden associated with making choices in highly complex information environments. The downside, of course, is that these shortcuts can also lead citizens and leaders astray, fomenting biases, even as they help simplify a decision. Understanding how cognitive limitations affect the ability of citizens and elites to make good decisions is the key to solving a large number of puzzles in our politics. The chapter also addresses how, if at all, one could overcome these biases.