• Request Info
  • Visit
  • Apply
  • Give
  • Request Info
  • Visit
  • Apply
  • Give

Search

A-Z Index Map

Psychology & Neuroscience

  • About Psychology & Neuroscience
    • Employment Opportunities
    • Newsletter
    • All News
    • Faculty News Archive
    • Student News Archive
  • Undergraduate Students
    • About our Majors
    • Course Descriptions
    • Community Involvement
    • Undergraduate Research
    • Advising Center
    • Study Abroad
  • Graduate Students
    • Programs
    • Admissions
    • Financial Assistance
    • Ethical & Data Availability Issues
    • Forms
    • PGSA
    • Student Appeal
  • Research
    • Neuroscience and Behavior
    • Clinical Psychology
    • Counseling Psychology
    • Cognitive and Developmental Science
    • Social Psychology
  • People
    • Faculty
    • Emeritus
    • Adjunct
    • Part-Time Clinical
    • Staff
    • Advisors
  • Psychological Clinic

Making good choices when life gets messy – practical wisdom relies on human judgment, not rules

Making good choices when life gets messy – practical wisdom relies on human judgment, not rules

Making good choices when life gets messy – practical wisdom relies on human judgment, not rules

March 11, 2026 by Kaitlin Coyle

no photo available

Making good choices when life gets messy – practical wisdom relies on human judgment, not rules

Profile
Tim Hulsey, University of Tennessee

A few semesters into my teaching career as a psychology professor, I uncovered a cheating ring. I determined who the ringleader was and called him to my office.

He admitted that he had illicitly obtained a copy of the exam and shared it with other students. He began to cry, telling me he was from a single parent family, the first in his family to go to college, and that his mother would be crushed if he was dismissed from the university for academic dishonesty.

I did not know what to do. I was angry at what he had done, but I also felt sorry for his situation. For reasons I still don’t fully understand, I decided to call his mother. When I told her what he had done, she apologized repeatedly, then said coldly, “Let me speak to him.”

I don’t know what she said, but as the color drained from his face and he was reduced to repeatedly saying, “Yes, ma’am,” I assumed he was being read the riot act. After he hung up, he headed home to, I suspect, more severe punishment than the university could have given. He received a “0” on the exam and an official reprimand in his student file, but I’m willing to bet that the most important lesson he learned didn’t come from the university or me.

Though I didn’t yet know the word, the decision to call his mother was an example of phronesis, an ancient Greek word usually translated as “practical wisdom.” It refers to the ability to make good decisions in real-life situations, especially when there are no clear rules or easy answers.

Charioteer of the virtues, guiding them all

Phronesis provides you with the ability to deliberate well about what is good and bad in specific circumstances. Unlike theoretical knowledge (sophia) or technical skill (techne), phronesis is about judgment – how to choose the right action at the right time for the right reasons.

When you think about wisdom, maybe you imagine a philosopher pondering big questions or a scientist unlocking the secrets of the universe. But phronesis is a different kind of wisdom, one that is less about abstract ideas and more about navigating the messy, unpredictable realities of everyday life. Phronesis helps you live well, not by following rules, but by making wise choices in the face of complexity. It’s what allows you to turn knowledge into action that is then beneficial.

Phronesis is a central component of the virtue approach to character development and morality first described by Aristotle. Virtues like courage, generosity, justice and temperance tell you what goals you should aim for, but they don’t tell you how much, when or in what way you should act in a specific situation. Phronesis helps you think through and decide the right means to achieve the right ends in the moment.

Aristotle called phronesis “the charioteer of the virtues” because it provides the guidance system that ensures the other virtues are applied correctly in real life. As he put it, “It is impossible to be good in the strict sense without practical wisdom.”

Let’s take the example of courage. Everyone wants to be brave and stand up for their values. However, without phronesis, too much courage may become recklessness, or too little courage could result in cowardice. Phronesis allows you to know when to take a risk and when to hold back.

Or consider justice, the virtue of treating others fairly. Phronesis allows you to choose what is fair in a specific situation. Virtues set the goals – for instance, “be courageous” or “be just” – but phronesis determines the right way to achieve them.

Practice phronesis in the face of complexity

Developing phronesis takes time and effort. It requires experience, reflection and careful reasoning. Because phronesis is social, it thrives in environments where people share their perspectives and challenge each other’s assumptions.

You don’t have to be a philosopher or a scientist to practice phronesis. Modern life is full of complexity. We are regularly faced with questions that don’t have clear answers.

Picture a parent who must decide whether to enforce bedtime or allow a child to stay up for a special family occasion. The rule says bedtime is nonnegotiable, but practical wisdom reminds us of the value of shared family experiences.

Or consider a manager who notices an employee missing deadlines. Instead of simply reprimanding them, they might ask what’s going on and discover a family emergency. They could adjust expectations and offer support, balancing fairness with compassion.

These kinds of decisions reflect practical wisdom because they anticipate future needs, not just rules or consequences.

In a world obsessed with data and efficiency, phronesis reminds us that human judgment still matters. Algorithms can optimize processes, but they can’t weigh moral values or capture the subtleties of human relationships. Whether in education, health care, business or politics, decisions that affect lives require more than technical expertise. They require wisdom.

Phronesis counters the illusion that life’s problems have simple, one-size-fits-all solutions. It helps us realize that good judgment takes time, empathy and reflection. So, the next time you face a tough decision, pause and ask: What’s the wise thing to do?The Conversation

Tim Hulsey, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Tennessee

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Filed Under: Faculty, Faculty News, Featured

Garriy Shteynberg in ‘The Conversation’ Podcast: Sharing that moment: can collective experiences bring people closer together?

Garriy Shteynberg in ‘The Conversation’ Podcast: Sharing that moment: can collective experiences bring people closer together?

July 24, 2024 by Logan Judy

no photo available

Garriy Shteynberg in ‘The Conversation’ Podcast: Sharing that moment: can collective experiences bring people closer together?

Profile
Gemma Ware, The Conversation

Across the world, fans will soon be tuning in at all hours of the day and night to watch the Paris Olympics. In a world where on-demand media streaming is now increasingly the norm, sport is something of a rarity. It’s watched live, often with other people. The joy, or heartbreak, is shared.

Can something as simple as watching a sporting competition at the same time bring people closer together? In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we explore this question with a psychologist who studies the impact of shared experiences.

In his experimental psychology lab at the University of Tennessee, Garriy Shteynberg creates situations in which his test subjects go through an experience together. “We’re trying to amp up this feeling of shared experience or shared attention,” he explains. It could be watching a video together, something sad, or funny. Or asking people to work towards a goal, such as memorising a list of words.

The results suggest that, when compared to control conditions in which someone experiences something alone or at a slightly different time to others, the shared attention of experiencing something together amplifies the experience and can even give people more motivation to complete a task.

We found that if I give you a surprise test after the fact, if you co-experience the list of words, you’re better able to recall that list versus if you experience them alone. If we co-experience an emotional scene, we find that people feel more emotional … so if it’s a happy scene, people feel happier … if it’s a sad scene … people feel sadder. It amplifies whatever that stimulus is.

Collective mind

Shteynberg’s experiments led him to develop what he calls the theory of the collective mind.

The idea is that our individual minds not only track where we diverge, but they also track where we converge with others. When you create a collective mind, it’s as if the perspective broadens, it becomes a “we perspective”.

His own experience of immigrating to the US from the Soviet Union as a child influences Shteynberg’s thinking about collective perspectives.

In the Soviet Union, collective consciousness was emphasised all the time. In the United States, it’s quite the opposite. Most of the time, collective consciousness is something to be afraid of. It is something that put in the background. You want individual consciousness, individual reasoning. Both of those outlooks are mistaken in a way.

He argues that people have individual thoughts and experiences, and simultaneously, they also have collective ones. Both of those matter to how they experiences the world.

Shteynberg is now interested in whether shared experiences can also help bring people together, particularly in the context of increasing political polarisation.

Shared experiences form this minimal social connection that doesn’t require us to share identities, ideologies or even beliefs … The idea that we are in the same room together, that we might be watching the same news is an important social bridge upon which things can be built.

Shteynberg says that in many different ways, irrespective of their politics, people believe they share a basic experience with others, whether that’s how they live, work, or even watching something like the Olympics on TV.

I think the focus being on the deep division and that always being front and centre of our shared experience obscures the fact that we are in fact of collective mind to a great number of things.

To listen to the full interview with Garriy Shteynberg about his research, subscribe to The Conversation Weekly podcast, which also features Maggie Villiger, senior science editor at The Conversation in the US. You can also read an article Shteynberg wrote about his research on the collective mind.


We’re running a listener survey to hear what you think about The Conversation Weekly podcast. It should take just a few minutes of your time and we’d really appreciate your thoughts. Please consider filling it in.

A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts.

Newsclips in this episode from BBC Sport.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Katie Flood with assistance from Mend Mariwany. Sound design was by Eloise Stevens, and our theme music is by Neeta Sarl.

You can find us on Instagram at theconversationdotcom or via email. You can also subscribe to The Conversation’s free daily email here.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.The Conversation

Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Filed Under: Faculty, Faculty News, Featured

The Conversation: ‘Animal behavior research is getting better at keeping observer bias from sneaking in – but there’s still room to improve’

The Conversation: ‘Animal behavior research is getting better at keeping observer bias from sneaking in – but there’s still room to improve’

May 6, 2024 by Logan Judy

no photo available

The Conversation: ‘Animal behavior research is getting better at keeping observer bias from sneaking in – but there’s still room to improve’

Profile
What you expect can influence what you think you see. Auscape/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Todd M. Freeberg, University of Tennessee

Animal behavior research relies on careful observation of animals. Researchers might spend months in a jungle habitat watching tropical birds mate and raise their young. They might track the rates of physical contact in cattle herds of different densities. Or they could record the sounds whales make as they migrate through the ocean.

Animal behavior research can provide fundamental insights into the natural processes that affect ecosystems around the globe, as well as into our own human minds and behavior.

I study animal behavior – and also the research reported by scientists in my field. One of the challenges of this kind of science is making sure our own assumptions don’t influence what we think we see in animal subjects. Like all people, how scientists see the world is shaped by biases and expectations, which can affect how data is recorded and reported. For instance, scientists who live in a society with strict gender roles for women and men might interpret things they see animals doing as reflecting those same divisions.

The scientific process corrects for such mistakes over time, but scientists have quicker methods at their disposal to minimize potential observer bias. Animal behavior scientists haven’t always used these methods – but that’s changing. A new study confirms that, over the past decade, studies increasingly adhere to the rigorous best practices that can minimize potential biases in animal behavior research.

Black and white photo of a horse with a man and a small table between them displaying three upright cards.
Adding up? Karl Krall/Wikimedia Commons

Biases and self-fulfilling prophecies

A German horse named Clever Hans is widely known in the history of animal behavior as a classic example of unconscious bias leading to a false result.

Around the turn of the 20th century, Clever Hans was purported to be able to do math. For example, in response to his owner’s prompt “3 + 5,” Clever Hans would tap his hoof eight times. His owner would then reward him with his favorite vegetables. Initial observers reported that the horse’s abilities were legitimate and that his owner was not being deceptive.

However, careful analysis by a young scientist named Oskar Pfungst revealed that if the horse could not see his owner, he couldn’t answer correctly. So while Clever Hans was not good at math, he was incredibly good at observing his owner’s subtle and unconscious cues that gave the math answers away.

In the 1960s, researchers asked human study participants to code the learning ability of rats. Participants were told their rats had been artificially selected over many generations to be either “bright” or “dull” learners. Over several weeks, the participants ran their rats through eight different learning experiments.

In seven out of the eight experiments, the human participants ranked the “bright” rats as being better learners than the “dull” rats when, in reality, the researchers had randomly picked rats from their breeding colony. Bias led the human participants to see what they thought they should see.

Eliminating bias

Given the clear potential for human biases to skew scientific results, textbooks on animal behavior research methods from the 1980s onward have implored researchers to verify their work using at least one of two commonsense methods.

One is making sure the researcher observing the behavior does not know if the subject comes from one study group or the other. For example, a researcher would measure a cricket’s behavior without knowing if it came from the experimental or control group.

The other best practice is utilizing a second researcher, who has fresh eyes and no knowledge of the data, to observe the behavior and code the data. For example, while analyzing a video file, I count chickadees taking seeds from a feeder 15 times. Later, a second independent observer counts the same number.

Yet these methods to minimize possible biases are often not employed by researchers in animal behavior, perhaps because these best practices take more time and effort.

In 2012, my colleagues and I reviewed nearly 1,000 articles published in five leading animal behavior journals between 1970 and 2010 to see how many reported these methods to minimize potential bias. Less than 10% did so. By contrast, the journal Infancy, which focuses on human infant behavior, was far more rigorous: Over 80% of its articles reported using methods to avoid bias.

It’s a problem not just confined to my field. A 2015 review of published articles in the life sciences found that blind protocols are uncommon. It also found that studies using blind methods detected smaller differences between the key groups being observed compared to studies that didn’t use blind methods, suggesting potential biases led to more notable results.

In the years after we published our article, it was cited regularly and we wondered if there had been any improvement in the field. So, we recently reviewed 40 articles from each of the same five journals for the year 2020.

We found the rate of papers that reported controlling for bias improved in all five journals, from under 10% in our 2012 article to just over 50% in our new review. These rates of reporting still lag behind the journal Infancy, however, which was 95% in 2020.

All in all, things are looking up, but the animal behavior field can still do better. Practically, with increasingly more portable and affordable audio and video recording technology, it’s getting easier to carry out methods that minimize potential biases. The more the field of animal behavior sticks with these best practices, the stronger the foundation of knowledge and public trust in this science will become.

Todd M. Freeberg, Professor and Associate Head of Psychology, University of Tennessee

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Filed Under: Faculty, Faculty News

Recent Posts

  • Students, Faculty, and Alumni Making an Impact
  • Welsh’s Legacy Honored with New Scholarship
  • Cao’s Cognitive Science Contributes to AI Initiative
  • In Sync and Out
  • Keith Brings Autism Expertise to UT Clinic

Recent Comments

No comments to show.

College of Arts & Sciences

117 Natalie L. Haslam Music Center
1741 Volunteer Blvd.
Knoxville TN 37996-2600

Phone: 865-974-3241

Archives

  • May 2026
  • March 2026
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • April 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • May 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • July 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • February 2023

Categories

  • Faculty
  • Faculty News
  • Featured
  • Newsletter
  • Staff
  • Student News
  • Uncategorized

Copyright © 2026 · University of Tennessee, Knoxville WDS Genesis Child on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Department of Psychology & Neuroscience

College of Arts and Sciences

Austin Peay Building,
1404 Circle Dr
Knoxville, TN 37916

Phone: 865-974-3328

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Knoxville, Tennessee 37996
865-974-1000

The flagship campus of the University of Tennessee System and partner in the Tennessee Transfer Pathway.

ADA Privacy Safety Title IX