Our Leaders: Intellect vs. Social Charm

Post Reply New Topic

Right now, at least in the United States, the big decisions are made by people who came to be where they are mostly for their social skills and consequent connections. They are skilled at delivering messages in a way that is least offensive to the widest audience. They are skilled at anticipating likely reactions and knowing who is most likely to support them. They get by on trading favors (which we sometimes call negotiation or compromise). These sort of people are naturally highly interdependent and develop extensive social networks to compensate for their weaknesses.

On the other hand is the aspie: fiercely intellectual, independent, analytical, original, not particularly social. Right now people whose main skill, or "asset," is their intellect, expertise, or other such mental facility serve in an advisory role to the socially influential people mentioned in the previous paragraph. The leader takes input from many such experts from various domains and tries to weigh it all and come to a decision; they lack an in-depth knowledge of most of the subjects they are dealing with and instead must rely on the executive summary from their experts, the demands of their constituency, and political pressure. Since they are most often more concerned with electability, advancement in the party or corporation, or the evaluation of stockholders, their decisions often value the short-term gain over long-term, sustainable benefit.

Would we be better off if our governing and commercial institutions were run by people more like ourselves—more aspie or at the very least more intellectual and less socially obsessed?

Well, with the current system of assigning political power, politicians have to be generalists and thus can't really have an in-depth knowledge of any particular issue. This I think is one of the main flaws of our governmental system, but in any case the political leaders will usually listen to their advisers, which should get the same end result as having people with specialized knowledge in power. I don't know if I really want an "Aspie-archy" but I wouldn't mind having more intellectuals in power.

You must have people skills. You must be able to lie and convince them, or at least show no sign of lying; even when the audience knows you're lying. You must be able to think quickly, understand what a person wants to hear, and not care about opposition (ever ready to counterattack). You must show emotions and make it seem as if you're being honest. You must be charismatic.


Gordon Brown I hear is an intellectual. I also hear no one likes him.

This is under the current system. I am saying, what if we could make the system different?

The current system works best for the people, mainly because the people identify with the leader.

Most attempts to change the system fail, largely because systems are put in place for a reason and not really chosen at random. I see some issues with the way we currently run things, but not necessarily enough that I'm in favor of massively restructuring society to deal with those problems.

a generalist people person as the leader with intellectual specialists as the leader of each department supporting him. sounds ok to me.

I look at John Howard, former PM of Australia, and George W Bush, current president of the USA. Dubya has a higher IQ than Howard (apparently), and yet, which one is seen as more competent (many people in Australia, myself included, hated Howard, but we could admire the fact that he had competency compared to Dubya)?

People don't think Ron Paul is presidential because he isn't the best speaker. He has the best policies though! Yeah I think the U.S needs a priorities wake up call when who's the best president is based on charm over policy and plans.

If you think people will vote based on actual policies or reason in the foreseeable future, then you are vastly overestimating the American people imo. Aside from that, most Americans are somewhat anti-intellectual at the moment.

Many leaders have had both charisma and intelligence. Bill Clinton is a good example, he went to college on a Rhodes Scholarship. Barack Obama is another example, he was a Constitutional Law professor and the first black editor of (IIRC) the Harvard Law Review academic journal before he went into politics (His expertise in constitutional law and his intellectuality in general is one of the reasons I like him).

Oh, and being intelligent doesn't always mean being intellectual. Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower were both quite intelligent but weren't really intellectual. A few months ago a read a new biography of FDR and he seems to have been a really hands-on, practical person. He hated classes with lots of abstract theory (such as economics) but loved things like journalism.

Practical versus Ideal? I'd go with Ideal anytime, but I am forced to go with Practical.

Yes, but neither is the bookish intellectual type. I am referring to someone who shares experiences in common with me. They grew up memorizing interesting facts (to them at least), excelled academically, and developed a base of obscure technical knowledge. Their ability to make policy decisions derives from this strong intellectual base rather than so much listening to their advisers and pandering to their constituency.