does naive mean low wisdom

[limejuicepowder]

As a starting point I'll show both of the relevant dictionary definitions:

1) having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.

2) having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous

The first definition to me would more indicate low int - a simple person who always says what the mean and mean what they say is probably low in int and not necessarily in wisdom.

The second however is more towards low wisdom: poor judgement (or common sense), and taking information at face value.

In my mind, it's pretty clear-cut that a naive person is low in wisdom - but if I extend that thought, it's where it gets tricky. If someone is prone to not considering different aspects of a problem, and sees things in simple black and white, I would definitely call that person naive. However, this type of thinking almost perfectly describes someone with say, strong religious convictions. Thus I arrive at clerics have low wisdom.

Yeah I'm half joking on the second part, but are there any dissenting opinions?

[ArcturusV]

Except it falls apart in DnD. In the real world we can draw that distinction with Religious Zealots being Naive Fools and such (If that is your inclination towards Religion) due to the fact that it's purely faith. Beyond the tenets that the religions teach (Often good, basic, common sense sort of ideals), it's mostly a matter of Choice and what you like to believe in. (Not intending to get in a religious debate or anything. NOT the point. Just saying why that interpretation of the stat doesn't apply as follows)

But in DnD? Religious Zealots are NOT powered by Faith, it's fact. They KNOW Gods exist. People can freakin' visit them (And do). You can pop into their realms and get The Word directly from some Deva holding a book of holy fire, etc. It's not based on blind faith, trust, and belief. So the more apt comparison is Clerics being more like Physicists in our world.

The difference between Intelligence and Wisdom though was always somewhat vague. Mostly because we, in every day life, attribute a lot of what the rules would consider "Wisdom" to Intelligence.

Take for example the topic posted a few days ago asking if Dex or Wisdom should be the basis of Initiative. And quite a number of posters positing that it should be Intelligence. Because Intelligence is sheer cognitive power which allows your brain to react faster, which allows your body to react faster.

... but if you think of the PRACTICAL example... there's been a lot of high IQ "Gifted" kids over the generations in school who have taken faaaaaaar too many blows from bigger, dumber, stronger, faster kids who have half the IQ and twice the Cunning to really accept that.

I myself know a lot of otherwise very intelligent people who lack social skills (Charisma), or Common Sense (Wisdom). And I know a lot of guys with cunning, awareness, and the ability to read others and their surroundings (high Wisdom) who are otherwise not all that bright.

[hymer]

I guess it's the same problem as the one with IQ. Someone might be very naif when it comes to gift customs but exceedingly savvy in the area of acquiring a seat in a crowded train.
There's also the basic problem that in the real world, the three mental scores (and for that amtter the three physical ones) tend to cluster in most people. Yes, you can find people who are hugely knowledgeable in specific areas, but who can't seem to grasp basic courtesy. But these are not the norm. Generally, intelligent people are also more intuitive and charming.

So I have no particular objection to what you say, except that you may be putting too much pressure on a construction (the ability score system) that wasn't meant to carry it.

[shadow_archmagi]

1) having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.


That's an interesting point. Forrest Gump and Chance the Gardener are both extremely simple people who don't understand the artificial conventions of society very well.

At the same time, they have a zen aspect to them that makes them come across as maybe being wiser than us, because they at least know who they are.

[limejuicepowder]

Except it falls apart in DnD. In the real world we can draw that distinction with Religious Zealots being Naive Fools and such (If that is your inclination towards Religion) due to the fact that it's purely faith. Beyond the tenets that the religions teach (Often good, basic, common sense sort of ideals), it's mostly a matter of Choice and what you like to believe in. (Not intending to get in a religious debate or anything. NOT the point. Just saying why that interpretation of the stat doesn't apply as follows)

But in DnD? Religious Zealots are NOT powered by Faith, it's fact. They KNOW Gods exist. People can freakin' visit them (And do). You can pop into their realms and get The Word directly from some Deva holding a book of holy fire, etc. It's not based on blind faith, trust, and belief. So the more apt comparison is Clerics being more like Physicists in our world.


I'm not talking about religious belief as a whole in DnD; you are absolutely right in that "believers" in a typical DnD world have proof that their particular god exists. At that point, being religious would be more a function of "leader" vs "follower" vs "rebel" personality types. I was more addressing the simplistic view that religious followers often take, that the world is black and white with clear rules and no exceptions. This type of thinking would still be alive and well in a DnD world, and I think this view is an perhaps an indication of naivety, or low wisdom.

Again though, I know I'm kind of stretching with that. However, if a cleric's power really does come from his faith, I think an argument could be made that spells should be based on charisma, not wisdom. I'm sure the original intention was that clerics are holy and wise, reflecting on the world around them - but I think that does not describe faithfulness. Charisma - i.e., force of personality, self-confidence, and perhaps even conviction, is more aligned with devotion.

What Hymer said about putting too much stress on the system is absolutely right.

[ericgrau]

I'd say naive is a lack of experience only. A low wisdom may cause someone to be unable to perceive and therefore unable to learn. As may a low int make someone unable to process and therefore unable to learn. But someone with a high wis and high int may be naive about something, if only temporarily.

Being naive about everything may indicate that someone has a low wis and/or int, but it may also indicate that he is a young child or outsider.

Socially cha may work in a similar way.

[Clistenes]

I think naive would translate as low Sense Motive check bonus (ranks + Wisdom bonus) and probably a low Bluff check bonus (ranks + Cha bonus) too. Low wisdom would help make you naive, but a person with Wisdom 10 and zero Sense Motive ranks would be seen as naive in many enviroments were many Bluff checks are done.

Also, there is a Naive anti-feat/flaw that gives you penalties to Sense Motive and Bluff. You could have a decent Wisdom score and still have the Naive flaw.

[Scow2]

You're way off in assuming that a black and white worldview is naivety or a lack of wisdom. Frequently, the simple answer's the correct one.

Also - you demonstrate staggering ignorance of how faith and belief work.

[Philistine]

Really, the problem is that none of the mental attributes in D&D are rigorously defined in real-world terms - and worst off of all is Wis, virtually all of whose functions as described could be as easily ascribed to Int or Cha (as those in turn are described).

[Telonius]

I generally see the three mental attributes as being about three separate ways a character can interact with the world, at least as far as skills and ability checks go. Wisdom is about how well a character perceives things: objects, sounds, motives (of others or of yourself), your own body's status and how it works. Intelligence is how well a character analyzes and remembers things. Charisma is about how well a character expresses themselves, either verbally or nonverbally, or in terms of the force of your personality.

If you're basing a decision on intuition, "gut feelings," and belief, rather than careful thought and analysis, that's more Wisdom than Intelligence. Intelligence can certainly inform a gut feeling, but that reliance on belief is really what makes a Divine caster a Divine caster. It's also likely what draws someone into a deity's service - they really feel a calling one way or the other; stronger gut feeling means higher wisdom. That increased reliance on gut feelings might also be what causes them to tend to see things in black and white. They get a sense of a character's primary motivation, and ascribe everything to that motive. (The whole "once you start down the dark path" thing). It's not that they're lacking experience, it's that they're not completely analyzing the situation for all possible variables - which is more of a function of Intelligence than of Wisdom.

(Side note: I've gone back and forth over whether Will saves ought to be based on Charisma or on Wisdom. On the one hand, most things that require a Will save have something to do with forcing somebody to act in a certain way, so the "force of personality" pretty clearly has something to do with it. On the other hand, if your concept of making a Will saves involves being true to what you really are, gut feelings and core beliefs also have a lot to do with it.)

[limejuicepowder]

You're way off in assuming that a black and white worldview is naivety or a lack of wisdom. Frequently, the simple answer's the correct one.

Also - you demonstrate staggering ignorance of how faith and belief work.

I'd love to hear your reasons for thinking that. Before you do though, I'd like to make something clear that I only touched on before: I know it's a stretch to say conclusively that high wisdom is at odds with a black and white world view. For the easiest example, someone who (for lack of better words) strives to be the embodiment of good might find themselves in a morally sticky situation when they refuse to compromise a particular belief for the greater good - say, refusing to kill one or some to save many. They would recognize the numerical harm they would ultimately be doing, but would refuse to compromise a cherished belief. This person wouldn't (necessarily) have low wisdom, but they would certainly have a black and white world view.

I would argue though this type of person would be the exception: most people who think in binary terms do not do so for such a lofty purpose as "the embodiment of good," or with as much awareness of their actions as the example. They do so because it's easy to think that way - circumstances can be disregarded, and new information rejected. This indicates to me a lack of common sense, or wisdom.

So really, my original question is based on these tendencies.

[ArcturusV]

True. I often see Will saves as being Wisdom because it's being able to perceive that something isn't right. Especially when a lot of Will Saves seem to be in the Mind Effecting, Compulsion sort of categories. Recognizing that something is wrong. That you suddenly are changing your thought patterns and you are falling under the thrall of something else.

[limejuicepowder]

I think naive would translate as low Sense Motive check bonus (ranks + Wisdom bonus) and probably a low Bluff check bonus (ranks + Cha bonus) too. Low wisdom would help make you naive, but a person with Wisdom 10 and zero Sense Motive ranks would be seen as naive in many enviroments were many Bluff checks are done.

Also, there is a Naive anti-feat/flaw that gives you penalties to Sense Motive and Bluff. You could have a decent Wisdom score and still have the Naive flaw.

Would you say naivety would then only be defined by social interaction? I really think it extends to a lot more than that. Excessive optimism (and planning poorly based on that optimism) would be an example of naivety, yes?

[Scow2]

Would you say naivety would then only be defined by social interaction? I really think it extends to a lot more than that. Excessive optimism (and planning poorly based on that optimism) would be an example of naivety, yes?

No. No it's not. It's merely excess optimism and poor planning. On the other hand, haphazard plans thrown together against great odds can have world-calling repercussions



I would argue though this type of person would be the exception: most people who think in binary terms do not do so for such a lofty purpose as "the embodiment of good," or with as much awareness of their actions as the example. They do so because it's easy to think that way - circumstances can be disregarded, and new information rejected. This indicates to me a lack of common sense, or wisdom.
Or, they recognize that the 'circumstances' that would require them to change their stance on an issue are as unlikely as Heat transferring from a hot object to a cold object - Technically, it's possible, but the odds of such are so infinitesimally small that we have the First Law of Thermodynamics stated as an absolute. Conviction is not a lack of wisdom or common sense.

[TuggyNE]

(Side note: I've gone back and forth over whether Will saves ought to be based on Charisma or on Wisdom. On the one hand, most things that require a Will save have something to do with forcing somebody to act in a certain way, so the "force of personality" pretty clearly has something to do with it. On the other hand, if your concept of making a Will saves involves being true to what you really are, gut feelings and core beliefs also have a lot to do with it.)

I've had the same back-and-forth, but eventually resolved it by figuring, hey, that's what the Force of Personality feat is for.

[limejuicepowder]

No. No it's not. It's merely excess optimism and poor planning. On the other hand, haphazard plans thrown together against great odds can have world-calling repercussions

Not really sure what you're getting at here. An excessively optimistic person is absolutely naive - they are rejecting or not considering what should be obvious because it's an inconvenient truth. Perhaps you are familiar with the phrase "rose-colored glasses." Also, how naive a person is has nothing to do with the magnitude of their decisions.



Or, they recognize that the 'circumstances' that would require them to change their stance on an issue are as unlikely as Heat transferring from a hot object to a cold object - Technically, it's possible, but the odds of such are so infinitesimally small that we have the First Law of Thermodynamics stated as an absolute. Conviction is not a lack of wisdom or common sense.

You should probably brush on your physics, as heat DOES move to cold. But I get the analogy you were trying to make. As I outlined above, strong convictions doesn't always indicate lack of thought, but it often times does.

[Scow2]

You should probably brush on your physics, as heat DOES move to cold. But I get the analogy you were trying to make. As I outlined above, strong convictions doesn't always indicate lack of thought, but it often times does.
Ack! I got it backward, double-checked, then got it backward again. I meant from Cold to Hot. (There needs to be a facepalm icon)

And no, strong convictions and values don't indicate a lack of thought, nor do weak convictions indicate a presence of thought.

[limejuicepowder]

And no, strong convictions and values don't indicate a lack of thought, nor do weak convictions indicate a presence of thought.

How strong are your convictions are that subject? :smallwink:

When someone speaks to me in absolute terms about subjective subjects (which most things are), my "might be talking to a simpleton" bell goes off. A subjective subject is exactly that - there are some, often times a lot of, variables that change the equation significantly, and just declaring a certain thing to be true and/or right 100% is....dangerous? Short-sighted? Naive? Take your pick.

Upon further conversation, a couple of things might happen. 1) they further explain or amend their position so that it's not so black and white, 2) they might give some excellent and rigorous reason why they feel so sure about the subject, or 3) it is revealed that they haven't considered a great deal of relevant information/possibilities, and when confronted with it, they dismiss it.

The most common case is, by far, number 3. Case 1 and 2 do come up occasionally of course, so I definitely can't say "all people with a black and white world view are unwise," but I can say such a world view is a (strong) indicator of low wisdom.

[Alienist]

True story: I belonged to a sci fi club filled with PhDs and Mensa candidates, which at one of their meetings administered an IQ test*. The top two scorers were both Evangelical Christians**.

*for entertainment purposes only.
**but not Bible Thumpers.***
***if you don't know the difference, you are not qualified to make sweeping comments about the mental faculties of people of faith. Get yaself some edumacation first.

Here's the thing. There are two world views. Materialism and Dualism.

Materialism says that there is no such thing as anything that is non-physical. Eventually Science will explain everything. E.g. there is absolutely no spiritual dimension to human existence.

Dualism says there might be a spiritual dimension to human existence, and there might be things that science will never explain.****

****As a for instance; pretty much every one off phenomena is (by definition) not repeatably testable.

Now, if you personally subscribe to a Materialist position, it's pretty easy to think that all those Dualists are just fools deceiving themselves. And vice versa.

This is why the Christians vs Atheists debates on the internet tend to never go anywhere. Each is arguing from a radically different worldview.

If you want to use Science to justify your worldview, then you should look at the rate at which we are discovering things we don't already know.

I would say that we know a lot more now about what we don't know than we did 100 years ago.

E.g. the net amount of unknowns is increasing.

If that is correct, then Dualism is not just an entirely reasonable position, it is in fact the only rational worldview.*****

Now, the Materialist will retort that at some distant point in the future they believe that the tide will turn and we will start solving unknowns faster than we are discovering them. Hence the net amount of unknowns will (in the distant future) start shrinking.

However, that is a statement of faith. And that is why you often see 'trolls of faith' winding up the 'militant atheists' by telling them that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a theist (or some other variety of dualist)

*****Ergo; if you 'believe in Science' you should adopt a dualist world view. Sadly Science is quiet on the subject of which dualist worldview is the correct one.******

******Though this would be an interesting experiment, it would have to be carefully planned otherwise it will slip into Philosophy ... and nobody wants that.

[Alienist]

When someone speaks to me in absolute terms about subjective subjects (which most things are), my "might be talking to a simpleton" bell goes off.

But are there absolutely no absolutes?

[Phelix-Mu]

The discussion has already devolved somewhat, but I will take a stab at the OP.

The game definitions "Wisdom," etc, are artificial terms that have been stripped down to allow us to package complex beings into a set of numbers.

In the real world, a term like "wisdom" is much less well-defined, as it is not objectively quantifiable, more something we qualitatively observe in someone over extended interaction.

"Naive" is similarly not a game term, and thus compares only poorly when set against either "Wisdom" or "Intelligence," which both describe a discrete trait as opposed to a nebulous set of behaviors or tendency toward said behaviors.

In short, in game, no correlation.

Characters with high Wisdom scores routinely make bad choices and do stupid things, with awareness of their actions not really mattering in this regard (since it is the player, not the character, making the choices...e.g., wise character, stupid player). Even if we leave the game and assume that wisdom is somehow quantitatively measurable in the abstract, the term wisdom looses the rigidity which would allow a comparison between "naive" and "high wisdom."

Without bringing religion into the matter, out of game, "wise" might encompass a set of behaviors that would preclude large amounts of naivety. But I think it is clear enough from the definitions that the two aren't mutually exclusive (otherwise "unwise" probably would have been in the definition of naive).

[limejuicepowder]

E.g. the net amount of unknowns is increasing.

If that is correct, then Dualism is not just an entirely reasonable position, it is in fact the only rational worldview.*****



You lost me here - just because there are unknowns, no matter how many, it doesn't prove the existence of "non-material" things.

I also don't quite understand what relevance this has to the discussion (sorry if this sounds rude - I don't mean to be).

[limejuicepowder]

The discussion has already devolved somewhat, but I will take a stab at the OP.

The game definitions "Wisdom," etc, are artificial terms that have been stripped down to allow us to package complex beings into a set of numbers.

In the real world, a term like "wisdom" is much less well-defined, as it is not objectively quantifiable, more something we qualitatively observe in someone over extended interaction.

"Naive" is similarly not a game term, and thus compares only poorly when set against either "Wisdom" or "Intelligence," which both describe a discrete trait as opposed to a nebulous set of behaviors or tendency toward said behaviors.

In short, in game, no correlation.

Characters with high Wisdom scores routinely make bad choices and do stupid things, with awareness of their actions not really mattering in this regard (since it is the player, not the character, making the choices...e.g., wise character, stupid player). Even if we leave the game and assume that wisdom is somehow quantitatively measurable in the abstract, the term wisdom looses the rigidity which would allow a comparison between "naive" and "high wisdom."

Without bringing religion into the matter, out of game, "wise" might encompass a set of behaviors that would preclude large amounts of naivety. But I think it is clear enough from the definitions that the two aren't mutually exclusive (otherwise "unwise" probably would have been in the definition of naive).

Yeah this probably is the most right answer, unfortunately. The system just isn't complex or defined enough, because at the end of the day it has to be a playable game.

For fun, let's try to from the other direction: if you wanted to play a naive character, how would you do so? Would you just play the naivety regardless of what scores you have, essentially saying naive is so out the scope of game there is no ability/skill/trait/feat to represent it?

[ArcturusV]

Naivety is usually a matter of XP and Backstory for me. High level characters are experienced enough in the world that they shouldn't be Naive any longer. And it doesn't quite make sense if your backstory is something like a street urchin in the slums of the capital city who had to fight every day just to be able to barely have something to eat and a place to sleep, etc.

[Clistenes]

Would you say naivety would then only be defined by social interaction? I really think it extends to a lot more than that. Excessive optimism (and planning poorly based on that optimism) would be an example of naivety, yes?

I think naviety refers mostly to social interaction, to trusting or putting too much faith on other people. An over-optimistic person who thinks that he can win an archery competition whitout having ever used a bow would be ignorant or foolish, but not necessarily naive.

Naive is not a synonym of foolish. A person could be foolish while being the opposite of naive: Somebody who doesn't trust anybody and thinks that everybody is always conspiring against him or her would act stupidly very often, and could even suffer of a personality disorder (Paranoid Personality Disorder flaw, -4 to all Charisma rolls).