While wisdom and critical thinking share many similarities, they are still distinct.

Wisdom is developed through experience, offering long-term insights, unlike critical thinking.

Critical thinking skills can lead to wisdom development over time.

It seems that discussions of wisdom have become something of a trend on this blog. Following two previous pieces I wrote on the topic here (Are You Wise? And What Actually Is Wisdom? and 5 Traits of Wisdom), an eagle-eyed reader got in touch and made the point that the way I, personally, conceptualized wisdom didn’t seem particularly distinct from critical thinking (CT). I say eagle-eyed, because I think there’s a lot to be said for their point. In my previous post, I conceptualized wisdom as:

“…a domain-general, metacognitive process; with epistemological understanding at its foundation; that develops over time with quality learning; and values and prioritizes the application of critical thinking when needed. The wise recognize their strengths, limitations, and place in the universe, making sure not to sweat the small stuff.”

“…a domain-general, metacognitive process; with epistemological understanding at its foundation; that develops over time with quality learning; and values and prioritizes the application of critical thinking when needed. The wise recognize their strengths, limitations, and place in the universe, making sure not to sweat the small stuff.”

The same can be said for CT (Dwyer, 2025). It is domain-general and metacognitive. Epistemological understanding is also at its foundation. In addition, CT develops over time with quality learning. Critical thinkers also recognize their strengths and limitations and make sure not to “sweat the small stuff.” So, what’s actually different? I think the answer to that is twofold, and both of those points are subtle.

In the definition above, I noted that the wise recognize their place in the universe: that is, as much as one can. What I mean by that is that wise people often self-reflect and make judgments about their interactions with the environment around them—places, people, things—and the context in which that takes place (e.g., how important is some action, relative to what or who is really important in life). Sure, the same goes for CT, but with respect to wisdom that extends beyond scenarios that require CT and represent more of a typical approach to things.

Take, for example, someone very successful in their work, who makes good money and who applies CT frequently, but often fails to see that they constantly work overtime. They don’t recognize that they are prioritizing their work, even though they don’t like it that much, over things that matter much more to them than the job. Only upon retirement might they realize all that they have missed out on. That person, though using CT throughout their life in a wide array of situations, may not have been so wise. So, I wouldn’t say that “knowing your place in the universe” is a prerequisite for CT (though it sure wouldn’t hurt).

The second point is one that I made in one of those previous posts (and alluded to above), but I think elaborating on it will be useful in this context. I wouldn’t consider wisdom as a thinking process per se, whereas I would consider CT as one or, perhaps, more accurately, a series of them. For example, CT involves the application of analysis, evaluation, and inference, all the while integrated with the workings of one’s reflective judgment and self-regulatory functions of thought (e.g., disposition, motivation, emotional intelligence, etc.).

Instead, wisdom might be conceptualized as an approach to thinking, if not an approach to life, more generally (i.e., what part of life doesn’t involve some form of thinking?). In this context, wisdom might be considered as a cache of knowledge, perspectives, and motivations—perhaps even expertise, in some cases, refined over time, that can be used to facilitate decision-making. Instead of a thinking process or processes, it might be the factor that helps you select what processes to use with respect to how you approach thinking and decision-making.

With that, I can pre-empt those who might say: Well, isn’t that just well-developed metacognition? The answer is yes! Indeed, wisdom is metacognitive. But not all that is metacognitive is wisdom.

From a cognitive development perspective, we can see CT start occurring in the teenage years, comprehensive of the processes addressed in more modern frameworks (as opposed to the performance of correlate operations often researched in children [e.g., problem-solving and verbal reasoning]). Then, cognitive development typically peaks around age 25-30 (i.e., with respect to brains being “fully” developed). In both demographics, individuals are well capable of thinking metacognitively.

With that said, I don’t think I could name a single person I’ve ever met, who, between 15 and 30, I could classify as truly “wise.” That’s not their fault; that’s just a result of not having the opportunities in life to experience a wide array of events from which to learn. Such opportunities and thoughtful engagement with them are what’s needed to achieve that “well-developed” metacognition associated with wisdom.

Though dependence on experience is often inconsistent with CT, there are quality experiences that can provide useful lessons, ranging from the short (e.g., “that lecture changed my life”) to the long (e.g., raising a family), which may not be available to those who are otherwise fully capable of applying CT in a given situation. Of course, mistakes can be made in how we apply these experiences. For example, maybe it was the wrong scenario in which to apply learning from said experience, or maybe you learned something wrong from the experience that hinders your decision-making.

Indeed, these are downsides associated with relying on experience. But wisdom is more of a “long-game thinking.” How we deal with those mistakes and learn from them helps us develop wisdom. For example, mistakes are fine (we’re only human), just as long as we use the experience as an opportunity to learn something valuable from the error.

With that said, wisdom and CT can certainly be considered hand in hand, and I would imagine (I know I’m speculating) that those who apply CT are often the ones most likely to develop wisdom over time (or so I hope). I guess I’ll know in time—perhaps when I’m a bit wiser! I’ll close this piece with one final factor that was left unaddressed from the description of wisdom above, with respect to comparing and contrasting it with CT: As a concept, wisdom values and prioritizes the application of critical thinking when needed. If you want to be wise, I recommend that you should too.

Dwyer, C.P. (2025). Knowledge doesn't exist & other thoughts on critical thinking. UK: Cambridge University Press.

There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.

By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

© Psychology Today