I.Q.’s (intelligence quotients), E.Q.’s (emotional quotients), and now we add the W.Q.: wisdom quotient.

Are we serious, you ask. We answer, you bet.

Is the test biased? You bet.

But it’s a start.

What fools these Magellan’s Log writers be, you say, adding: When was the last time anybody got a job or a promotion because of WISDOM???

Indeed, on any list of important job qualifications—what you know, who you know, what you’ve done, wisdom would come right at the bottom.

Anyway, how do you define "wisdom"? To which we retort, How do you define "intelligence"?

The whole business—no matter how lucrative—of quantifying human ability and potential is, let’s face it, extremely iffy.

One thing’s certain: If there’s no test at all for a given human characteristic, then in this by-the-numbers society, that can only mean that characteristic is about as important as the price of porn in Pago Pago.

Don’t you think it say a lot about us that, until this breakthrough moment, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A WISDOM TEST IN THIS SOCIETY?

Wisdom is something we generally leave to white-bearded gurus seated on distant mountain tops. Or we may hope to occasionally encounter a dollop from a nearby pulpit. And of course committed religionists pore over their various received texts, viewing them as the ONLY founts of wisdom.

Try this: Put "wisdom" and "television" in the same sentence and see what it does to your head. "Wise anchor"? "The wisdom of Fox News"?