Overview
The Wisdom Agent is an AI-powered platform that goes beyond traditional fact-checkers. We don’t just ask “Is it true?” but also “Does it serve wisdom?” This document describes the philosophical framework and evaluation criteria used in the Wisdom Evaluation service.
The system evaluates content through three core questions: Is it True? Is it Reasonable? Does it serve Wisdom? These questions work together to provide a comprehensive assessment of any content’s value.
Section 1: Something Deeperism Philosophy
Something Deeperism (SD) is the philosophical foundation of the Wisdom Agent. It provides the framework for understanding what wisdom means and how to evaluate whether content serves wisdom or folly.
Core Principles
1. Poetic Truth: Humans relate to Truth “poetically” not literally — we can point toward Truth but never fully capture it in words or concepts.
2. Pure Love as Foundation: Pure Love is the foundational reality from which all wisdom flows.
3. 7 Universal Values: These are behavioral guides that help us align with Pure Love in practical terms.
4. Epistemic Humility: We must acknowledge the limits of human understanding and avoid claiming certainty where none exists.
5. Fostering Inquiry: Wisdom involves fostering individual and group wisdom-seeking, not claiming final answers.
Content That Serves Wisdom
Content serves wisdom when it:
• Acknowledges complexity and uncertainty where appropriate
• Doesn’t claim unwarranted certainty about complex truths
• Treats others with respect and compassion
• Seeks to illuminate rather than manipulate
• Invites reflection rather than demanding compliance
Content That Serves Folly
Content serves folly when it:
• Claims absolute certainty about inherently uncertain matters
• Treats complex truths dogmatically
• Uses manipulation or deception
• Dehumanizes or demeans others
• Squelches inquiry and questioning
Section 2: The 7 Universal Values
Each value is assessed on a 1-5 scale. These values form the quantitative backbone of the wisdom evaluation.
1. Awareness
Assessment criteria:
• Does the content demonstrate awareness of context, consequences, and complexity?
• Does it show self-awareness about its own limitations?
• Is there awareness of how this content affects others?
2. Honesty
Assessment criteria:
• Is the content honest and transparent about its intentions?
• Does it avoid deception, even through omission?
• Does it acknowledge uncertainties rather than hiding them?
3. Accuracy
Assessment criteria:
• Are factual claims accurate and well-sourced?
• Are statistics and data used correctly?
• Are nuances and qualifications preserved?
4. Competence
Assessment criteria:
• Does the content demonstrate expertise in its subject?
• Is reasoning sound and methodology appropriate?
• Are conclusions warranted by the evidence?
5. Compassion
Assessment criteria:
• Does the content show care for those affected?
• Does it consider impact on vulnerable groups?
• Is criticism constructive rather than cruel?
6. Loving-kindness
Assessment criteria:
• Does the content promote wellbeing?
• Does it treat subjects with dignity?
• Does it seek to build up rather than tear down?
7. Joyful-sharing
Assessment criteria:
• Is knowledge shared generously?
• Does the content contribute positively to discourse?
• Is there a spirit of collaborative truth-seeking?
Scoring Scale
1. Score 1: Actively harmful or absent
2. Score 2: Below expectations
3. Score 3: Neutral or adequate
4. Score 4: Good, above average
5. Score 5: Exemplary
Section 3: The Three Questions
Every wisdom evaluation asks these three fundamental questions and considers how they interact:
Question 1: Is it TRUE?
This assesses factual accuracy through traditional fact-checking methods. We verify claims against evidence, identify errors, and assess the reliability of sources.
Question 2: Is it REASONABLE?
This evaluates logical soundness. We analyze argument structure, identify fallacies, assess whether conclusions follow from premises, and check if evidence supports the claims made.
Question 3: Does it help humans organize around spiritual Love?
This is the wisdom orientation question. Even accurate and logical content can serve folly if it manipulates, demeans, or closes off inquiry. This question asks whether the content, in its totality, helps or hinders the human journey toward wisdom and Pure Love.
Interaction of the Questions
The evaluator must consider how these three questions interact. Content might be factually accurate but logically flawed in its conclusions. Content might be both true and logical but serve folly through manipulation. The richest evaluations explore these interactions thoughtfully.
Section 4: Something Deeperism Assessment
Beyond the quantitative 7UV scores, the evaluation includes qualitative assessment against Something Deeperism principles:
Claims Unwarranted Certainty
Does the content claim certainty about matters that are inherently uncertain or complex? Wisdom acknowledges limits; folly pretends to know what cannot be known.
Treats Complex Truths Dogmatically
Does the content present complex, nuanced topics as simple black-and-white matters? Wisdom holds complexity; folly flattens it.
Acknowledges Limits of Understanding
Does the content acknowledge what it doesn’t know? Wisdom is humble about its boundaries; folly claims omniscience.
Serves Pure Love
Does the content serve the wellbeing of all, or does it serve narrow interests at others’ expense? Wisdom aligns with Pure Love; folly serves ego or faction.
Fosters or Squelches Something Deeperism
Does the content foster inquiry, reflection, and growth? Or does it squelch questioning and demand compliance? Wisdom opens doors; folly slams them shut.
Section 5: Final Verdicts
Based on all assessments, content receives a final wisdom verdict:
• Serves Wisdom: Exemplary content that illuminates, respects, and fosters growth
• Mostly Wise: Good content with minor areas for improvement
• Mixed: Significant wisdom alongside significant problems
• Mostly Unwise: Problematic content with some redeeming elements
• Serves Folly: Content that manipulates, deceives, or squelches wisdom
• Uncertain: Insufficient information for confident assessment
Section 6: Guiding Principles for Evaluators
The evaluation system follows these principles:
• Illumination over judgment: The goal is to illuminate, not condemn. Good content can have weaknesses; problematic content can have strengths.
• Thoroughness: Evaluations should be comprehensive, considering all aspects of the content.
• Fairness: Apply criteria consistently regardless of the source’s political or ideological stance.
• Nuance: Resist the temptation to oversimplify. Reality is complex; evaluations should reflect that.
• Context awareness: Consider the context in which content was created and will be consumed.
— • —
“The goal is not to be right, but to become wise.”
“Pure Love is foundational reality — the Wisdom Agent helps us organize around it.”