Oh, we poor cognoscendi, forever living in the world of resentful ignoramuses?

Perhaps taking the example of Plato, a starting-point for wisdom is to try to define your terms, in part through recalling what others have said.

Take e.g., the citation "In Chinese thought wisdom is perceived as expertise in the art of living, the ability to grasp what is happening, and to adjust to the imminent future (Simandan, 2018)."

Aristotle and Plato would call this phronesis, practical wisdom, where the root phrein refers to the gut -- where, not co-incidentally, Zeus put/ate his wife and gained by her wisdom (and modern-day scientists eagerly study the GI nervous system's role in anxiety). Aristotle rooted that in understanding politics (vagarities in how people react), economics/incentive systems, and of course the physical world in terms of knowledge-required, but in light of the recent well-educated democratic leaders who became tyrants, he posed it mainly as a question of character, not knowledge. (Remember Aristotle left his home to become the tutor of Alexander the Great.)

Some related terms from that time and place...

Nous: pure thought, thought considering itself, typically as validation for principles and coherence of chains of reasoning. Quite similar to Descartes' notion of the irreducibility of the sense of one's own mental activity, combined with the pureness of its continuity (that must of course be grounded in God).

Dianoia: two-thought, logical and a dialectical thought depending on reasoning chains from point to point. (cf Paranoia, i.e., concurrency dianoia, and Parmenides: "Mortals wander two-headed")

Aisthesis: perception, awareness.

Pistis: belief

Doxa: opinion

Episteme: understanding (standing around, or around the pillar), scientific reasoning, from facts with an account from principles. nb Theaetetus' initial stab at defining Episteme: "as far as I can see at present, episteme is nothing other than aisthesis" - i.e., all knowledge is rooted in perception or all knowledge is a kind of perception, depending on whether you're empiricist.

Most interesting is the term Sophrosyne, which is untranslatable. Sometimes wisdom, sometimes charity, later chastity. It's the basis for the Delphic maxim, "Know thyself". The ability to stand your post, to know what you know and what you don't know. Exemplified by Socrates in the calmness of his retreat at the loss of Potidea, where he saved others by not losing his head (by contrast to the virtue of courage, the ability to move forward notwithstanding danger and fear). If you want to investigate why we don't privilege wisdom, you could start by seeing why Sophrosyne cannot be translated.

Worth mentioning is Parmenides' (much earlier) idea that the philosopher is the person who knows his way through every town. In an era when the Mediterranean world was transformed by openness to trade and other societies, as grounded in the religious obligation to welcome strangers, and when Greeks defined themselves in part through the legend of Odysseus wandering before he returned home after war (another Sophrosyne story), it's somewhat appropriate to our own era.

Theaetetus (who produced a mathematical proof of irrational numbers) gave his definition after feeling completely lost. Socrates replied by saying all philosophy begins in wonder. So, is having a question, or starving for wisdom, is a kind of hunger, "resolved" with knowledge, so all we have to do is define our terms?

After Socrates took the hemlock and lay dying, Plato describes his death rather graphically, as his feet getting firm, then his legs, his body, etc until he was fully fixed. The language used is exactly that used for "defining" terms, suggesting that the process of definition itself is a kind of death. It certainly kills wonder :)