If you had a choice between being intelligent and being consistant, which would you choose?

Question

And since that choice often occurrs, and the first hallmark of leadership is consistancy: are then most leaders more consistant than intelligent?

Answer 1

I prefer to be intelligent- I generally form opinions after doing extensive research.

Politicians get chewed out and called "flip floppers" if they choose intelligence over consistancy. :| So I would say they're more consistant.

Answer 2

I'm not aware of any examples where one has to choose between intelligence and consistency, and I've never heard that the first hallmark of leadership is consistency. I also think that political leaders seem unintelligent especially when they are not consistent.

In answer to your title question, I would like to say both because both are very important qualities, but since that is not an option, I next ask myself if choosing one or the other would lead to a situation of having both. An intelligent person, almost by definition, is a person capable of knowing or discovering truths about the world, and the truth is always consistent with itself. Thus, by being intelligent one is necessarily consistent. However, it is possible to be consistently wrong within large but limited contexts.

Thus being intelligent leads to being consistent also, but merely being consistent does not create any quality of intelligence. I would therefore choose intelligence over consistency.

I would add that consistency serves as a check on intelligence. If for example a scientist who thinks of himself as intelligent obtains test results that are inconsistent with test results obtained by other scientists, he may not be as intelligent as he thinks, though he is likely to think the other scientists are in error.

Answer 3

It does seem like national politicians can't change their minds. Leaders who stick their fingers in the wind and change when the winds change aren't really leaders. But that's just how some leaders are perceived by their opposition and the opposition then is so scared of the same thing, that they never change their minds even when they should.

Which would I choose? You need both to be a good leader. But being consistent does not mean that you cannot change your mind.

Always remember that if you change from one position to another, you lose your power base unless your power base changes, too. You also lose the money you need to win an election from your contributors who believe in what you just changed your mind from. But even if you do that, changing your mind means you were wrong. Being wrong makes you look weak to some people. Being weak means you should lose.

Also, one should note that some politicians are inconsistent from one issue to another. Republicans believe in freedom and human rights, but then engage in domestic wire tapping and torture. Democrats believe in human rights and abortion. These things are completely contrary. Of course, there are arguments both groups can make to explain the inconsistencies in their positions, but I think it is the nature of human beings. People are generally inconsistent, because decisions, all decisions, are, to some extent, made by emotion. Politicians have to get votes from the people to stay in power, people are emotional and therefore inconsistent, so politicians are therefore inconsistent.

Of course, some people are intelligent, too. As a politician, it's probably better to be consistent. You make more money from contributors that way.

Answer 4

I thought the hallmark of good leadership is being consistently intelligent?

making good decisions on the back of other good decisions... so you're consistent... but progressing toward a goal...

Answer 5

In todays world, consistency has the upper hand. Anybody who does the flip-flop is being castigated no matter how intelligent they may be.

Can we agree that Winston Churchill was intelligent? Yet he switched his political party - twice! Many argued that he was being inconsistent, but he said '..I didn't change. The political partys did." He was consistent in his ideals, yet intelligent enough to realize that appearing inconsistent was not actually being so.

Anyone can rat, he said, but it takes a genius to re-rat.

Answer 6

Wrong. The first hallmark of leadership is the intelligence to perceive, understand, and adapt to changing circumstances.

Of course, since I am already more intelligent than any republican, that is what I would choose.

Answer 7

Before making the choice, I would learn how to spell consistent.

Consistency and intellect are not mutually exclusive.

Intelligent people are consistent. It comes with the package.

Answer 8

You immediately limited the argument as though no one has any other choice. Since that isn't reality, the question is pointless and the logic is sophist.

Kinda like saying all red-headed step children are ugly but smart. All blond women are beautiful but dumb. Therefore there is never any other reality that smart or dumb. Ugly or beautiful.

Answer 9

Intelligence for me. Consistancy leads to stagnation. I am, after all, a Mentat : ). Anybody who has read Dune should know better.

Answer 10

i might choose for smart strategies, a million. using fact i will have the brains to unlike some one out of my league, 2. unwell possibly make a residing out of being smart, unlike some gawguss human beings. and 3. i might think of that im fairly rather and get to up of myself like human beings do. Lol