Is a high IQ an important quality in a leader?

First, let's not be given to a strawman argument, because I can accept that someone
with an IQ of 75, probably will not make a good leader, let's confine our discussion
to persons with IQs over, say, 110 and above.

It seems that people, or some people, tend to place importance on IQ. An IQ test might be a good predictor of someone's ability to do well in engineering, math and the sciences, but it is a poor predictor for the liberal arts, philosophy, English, writing, or ability to run a business or be an effective leader.

The two faculties in a human are very separate, and one does not necessarily beget the other, despite that there might be some loose correlation, but how does one measure wisdom?

For example, Hitler's IQ was 141 (so says one source I checked), but was Hitler wise? Oppenheimer's IQ was 195 but he ultimately brought us the atomic bomb, but was that effort a wise one? (His genius certainly didn't prevent our enemies from getting the bomb, either ).

I'd rather have friends who might not be masters of abstract thinking, but are rich in wisdom and knowledge, than someone who has a high IQ, who is blatantly unwise or is the reincarnation of Machiavelli.

If a high IQ and wisdom exist in the same human being, it is a coincidence.

The good news is, though you are more or less stuck with the IQ nature endowed you with, wisdom can be acquired. Whether or not one acquires any measure of wisdom in one's life, has nothing to do with IQ (unless one is an imbecile). Wisdom is much harder to measure. It's value can vary greatly, depending on alignment. Trump measures wisdom with financial accomplishment, which is why he hired nothing but rich people for all of his cabinet posts. "I want successful people" he said, as he equates wisdom and leadership with money. But, is that wise? In my view, most assuredly it is not. Even William Buckley, the grandpa of conservatism, wrote this critique of Donald Trump:

But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents--midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War--had little to do with a bottom line.

IQ isn't the thing, wisdom is the thing.

 

IQ is certainly a factor in success of leaders but qualities of leadership such as being able to inspire and motivate other people (charisma means a lot in this regard) and think strategically are more important traits. Unfortunately in my observation, our society often selects leaders based on connections (who you know), and the highly valued public speaking ability. Thus the Peter Principle becomes the norm with people rising to the level of their incompetence.

 

It's not like we're going to replace voting with Spelling Bees. Nobody has a universal standard for defining 'intelligence' anyway, so how does it get measured? The world is full of idiots educated well beyond their capacity to make use of it. They become Professors, and nobody is dumb enough to vote for one of those.

 

IQ is one tool, wisdom is another. As you say, it is coincidence if both are present in one person, but in a democracy (or any organisation where the leaders are chosen), we can make an effort to pick those for whom that coincidence has worked out. Your limit of an IQ of 110 probably captures that, though.

That being said, I think a lot of the time, people attack others' IQ, when really the differing factor is a fundamental point of view (especially political leaders will have very well defined points of view). Besides, presidents and other leaders will have people and processes around them which eliminate the need for genius work.

 

How do you define wisdom? Someone might be very wise in the ways of his own field, but an absolute idiot in other fields.

I think IQ matters, as it measures the ability to use information and logic. Cognitive flexibility matters even more, me thinks. I guess this is what you had in mind, not wisdom as defined in the dictionaries.

Not every genius can be a good leader, and not every good leader must be a genius, but a good leader is required to make the right choices even in very difficult situations. Extensive knowledge (higher than average IQ) and cognitive flexibility are paramount. Social skills are also required, of course, as is the ability to step on own ego if necessary.

Bottom line - not Trump. Definitely not Trump.

 

Wisdom can come from knowledge. Yes you need a high IQ, and more likely higher than 120 or 130. I don't think at all that most high IQ people would be good leader, but the vast majority of good leader would have high IQ.
In the end IQ isn't the only matter. Like a lot of aspergers, I have a very high IQ, but I have average to poor communication skills. When I need to assume the position of a leader, I may be a decent one, even a good one. However I will never be a very good one or an exceptionnal one. Why ? I don't think in term of people, but in term of ideas. You need a counselor, an advisor, someone at ease with manipulating with ideas and abstraction, that I could be a fantastic one.
One of the quality you need with a leader is an ability to link people, having a good insight on what qualities have people. One of the greatest kind of form of intelligence remain the ability to form teams of skilled people. In other words one of the greatest intelligence is the intelligence of being able to rely on other people intelligence. And that kind of intelligence isn't IQ.

It's important to understand that intelligence isn't monolithic. IQ is an important thing, but not the only one.
We could compare that to food. Every type of food has specific role. Is a carot more important than an egg ? Each bring you its important elements, vitamin for one, proteins for the other. It's the same for the different types of intelligence.

 

I literally saw this title and thought, "Well, I'd say wisdom is much more important"


I'd add the importance of emotional intelligence (EQ), but honestly, I think wisdom covers that as well.

Wisdom typically involves the practical application of knowledge and a judicious approach, so it is a strength that should apply to any field. Even if it is a field where you don't have much personal knowledge (where you are "an absolute idiot"), wisdom would dictate that you acknowledge your shortcoming and consult experts/expand your knowledge.

But . . . yeah. Not Trump for any of the above.

 

For the most part, I agree with the above. Except that a good leader would need to know their strengths and their weaknesses, be willing to accept their weaknesses instead of getting defensive about them, and be wiling and able to build connections with people who fill the gaps in their skillset. All of that is what I would call "wisdom." Without wisdom, you end up unwilling or unable to address your weak areas.

To borrow from your analogy, wisdom is what tells you that you are a carrot and that you are in a situation that needs an egg, and it gives you the emotional fortitude to admit to the egg that you need them.

 

Cognitive flexibility is the brain function that allows people to gain wisdom, that's why I said it's paramount.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...912/3-ways-improve-your-cognitive-flexibility

Our perception of wisdom is highly subjective (some consider Plantinga, or the Pope, to be the epitome of wisdom). That's why we need a tool that is not dependent on perception.

This is enlightening, and explains my position regarding the importance of cognitive flexibility:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00426-018-1034-3

 

there is no correlation between wisdom and iq
I wouldnt doubt that hitlers iq was higher than 141, I'd wager closer to mid 150's, he did after all predict that if britain started a war with him they would self destruct and they did.
you do not need any experience (wisdom) to have a high iq.
The bulk of my friends have very high iq's and since they are older they have wisdom (experience) as well, and there is no comparison of the quality of arguments in our discussions for the same topics I bring up here compared to the bulk of the internet armchair commandos on forums et al.

 

Good post.

One of the serious problems we see today is the disdain for those with serious knowledge and experience in particular areas.

This isn't just about our national rejection of medical science in the face of COVID.

This problem is demonstrated across the board. It's why we ignore foreign policy experts. It's why we ignore climate change. It's why we promote COAL even when clean energy is a better choice even if economics is the only measure. It's why we fail to assure that education is available to all on an equal basis. etc., etc., etc.

We need leaders who recognize that they are not god's gift to every field of endeavor in this world, and who are willing to promote and accept advice from incredibly smart people who spend their lives extending human understanding in their fields.

 

I agree with your post, but am pretty sure William Buckley, who I had the honor of hearing speak a number of times, would not be supporting Biden/Harris over Trump like some RINOs today. It was Buckley who said he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard University, a sentiment I agree with.

Obama I assume was intelligent and a smooth speaker but he had the common sense of a gnat. It was JFK's 'best and brightest' that brought us Vietnam.

 

The OP is not entirely correct. It ignores that Verbal IQ correlates with language skills, writing, and communication skills, unlike what the OP said in part of the post. And yes, of course a high IQ is a very desirable quality in a leader. Sure, wisdom may be even more important, but the ability to lead also depends on what lay people define in the common language as "people skills" (in Psychology language, "personal effectiveness skills") and a person with high Verbal IQ can more easily read an audience, observe verbal cues, and react on-the-spot and rapidly to changing arguments, thus being more persuasive and more likely to win arguments (think for example of a Cabinet meeting). Sure, "people skills" don't solely rely on Verbal IQ, and also have components such as compassion, empathy, and diplomatic skills, but a high Verbal IQ is definitely a very good asset to have in terms of acquiring and demonstrating good "people skills."

Also, the person being very verbally articulate, he/she will more easily appear intelligent to subordinates (the aloof Math professor with horrible communication skills with high Performance IQ but not as high Verbal IQ won't as easily be perceived as intelligent by someone who is not equipped to understand high level Math just talking to him outside of the classroom). A person with high Verbal IQ will be more easily admired for his/her brilliance, and when subordinates admire the leader they follow the leader more willingly.

A great example is Bill Clinton, whose Verbal IQ was estimated to be around 159. A counter-example is George W. Bush whose Verbal IQ was estimated to be as low as 85. This influences perception which then influences the willingness to follow the leader: Bill Clinton was widely perceived as intelligent while George W. Bush was widely perceived as dumb. I doubt that George W. Bush was as dumb as advertised and his global IQ has been estimated to be as high as 138; maybe his Performance IQ was just much higher than his Verbal IQ, but yes, he was fairly inarticulate and clumsy in his verbal performances with a simple vocabulary that didn't inspire a lot of confidence, while Bill Clinton was a master of the spoken world. Please, don't attack this for some sort of partisan idea just because the presidents I highlighted for high and low Verbal IQ happen to be respectively Democrat and Republican, because of course there were Republican presidents with high Verbal IQ too, such as Nixon whose Verbal IQ was estimated at 142.

Another point that is very pertinent to today's world is that someone with a high Performance IQ is frankly more likely to understand and respect the Sciences than a person with low Performance IQ, due to a simple mechanism: during a person's schooling, the latter would stumble in learning the Sciences and would develop a negative reaction to the Sciences, akin to aversion, like a Pavlov conditioning when the subject develops aversion to something that repeatedly delivers unpleasant consequences. So a person who repeatedly stumbles when taught the Sciences, gets low grades, gets humiliated, berated and scorned by teachers and parents for it, may react to the aversion caused by the unpleasant stimuli with the defense mechanism of rationalization, saying "oh, it's all BS anyway." These days, examples abound in the fact that not having a healthy respect for the Sciences can lead to some disastrous consequences for a leader who is facing challenges that involve scientific issues.

In summary, wisdom is great, but don't underestimate the power of high intelligence. It is definitely a very important factor.

 

Well, I would say the leader should not have extremely low IQ. And should not have low IQ unless it is a special situation and they are better than the other option.
Preferably they should have a high IQ, but that may not always be necessary. Once they have at least moderately high IQ, other personal character traits become more important.

We can't be focusing all on one trait while completely ignoring all the others.
No candidate is going to be completely perfect.

 

In my lifetime I have definitely noticed a marked downward trend in Wisdom. While having a decent IQ is desired and admirable, Wisdom is one of those things that is kind of amorphous. It entails resilience, experience, decision-making, and more importantly patience.

I think our digital age has given us a serious handicap in expanding our Wisdom, but the blame also goes to our hectic and chaotic lives.

 

Wisdom is not what happens to a person, but what a person does with what's happened to them.

Similarly, intelligence isn't what a person knows but how a person applies what they know to a situation.

These are not the same and one does not necessarily lead to the other.

Further, there are many kinds of intelligence, understanding others is the first step in being a good leader, step 2 is understanding yourself.

 

~ No - not necessary. Some of the worst "leaders" had high IQ.

 

That is absolutely false. First, on Viet Nam war, let's get something straight about it. During the war, it was Bipartisan. Once in, conservatives, on the whole, backed it. We didn't see any protest marchers on the right against the war, we saw only those on the left and far left. SDS, and all that.

Buckley decided that Viet Nam was a bad idea, but only long after the fact, NOT during the war. Just about everyone, some sooner, some later, figured out that Viet Nam was a mistake, AFTER the war.

Biden does not equal 'faculty of Harvard' noting that Kissinger was once a member of that faculty, so obviously, he was speaking in jest. Biden's Law Alma Mater was Syracuse.

There is no way in hell Buckley would support a nationalist/populist/xenophobic/ man of moral turpitude like Trump, if the only choice were Trump and a moderate Dem. Biden has just enough neoliberalism in his soul that, if it were a choice between Biden and Trump, he'd chose Biden, just as the Lincoln republicans and many of the Bush republicans have.

ALL of your so-called RINOS today are 100% consistent in their views of conservatism with that of Bill Buckley, noting that once, in an essay, he wrote disparagingly against Trump, both as a human being and that being a businessman is not experience that necessarily makes for a great president.

Obama is the only president in my almost 70 years of being on this earth, brought me health care that I could afford ( prior to turning 66) so, from where I sit, he was a wise man. No repub was able to do that. And, 18 million other AMericans whom he brought health care to, would agree, and more would, as well, if republicans would work with dems to fix it's problems.

 

I read that book back during the 1990....... it is kind of funny how we tend to accept one promotion too many and end up in a position that we are not really qualified for........ and not even necessarily happy in.

 

The fact that Buckly didn't like Harvard professors as national leaders has very little to do with how he would want the US to be governed. He was making a specific point. The idea that Buckly was calling for ignorance is just plain sophistry. And, I'd note that he disparaged Harvard, not his own alma mater, Yale!

Buckley would have HATED this administration.

There is NOTHING conservative about this administration and its decisions are routinely ill considered and made with full blown ignorance of fact. And, that is not being mitigated by congress, as congress has ceded to every whim without objection.

I didn't agree with his policy ideas much at all, but there is NO way to respect the idea that he would favor the kind of disdain for educated thought and planning being daily expressed by the GOP in charge today.

Buckley WANTED serious planning. He WANTED a well thought out foreign policy. He WANTED a sound economic policy. He did not disdain our medical science. He respected our system of checks and balances and expected it to be used.

Go back and read his columns before making more claims about Buckley. His opinions on all topics of government had serious elements of long term direction and philosophy. While today, there IS NO such direction.

 

JFK in a private conversation said he knew Vietnam was doomed but he couldn't get out because it would damage his re-election chances. LBJ escalated the war, and Nixon ended it. IMHO JFK after failing in the Bay of Pigs disaster was looking for a place he could look tough. Because some in the GOP were gung-ho in Vietnam only proves the myth of nation-building is bi-partisan. Trump is a refreshing change from that mindset.

No he wasn't, and I'm sure today's Harvard faculty will be supporting Biden unfortunately.

There seems to be some confusion on where Biden went to school, including in Biden's mind.

I absolutely disagree on all you wrote, and as far as moral turpitude, your guy raped Tara Reade and broke up a home when he married Jill. You talk about moral turpitude, what about the LW hero JFK who was a serial adulturer in the WH, and who had hookers in the WH? We aren't voting for pastor. When I have a plumber come to my house for a repair I only care can he do the job. Trump has accomplished more in three and a half years than Biden in 47.

Buckley would support Trump in a heatbeat over the radicals behind puppet Biden such as AOC and the Bernie wing. Trump has accomplished what RINOs only gave lip service to, secure borders, getting out of bad trade deals, and the best economy in my lifetime until COVID. There was very little distance for example between Bush Jr. and Clinton on foreign wars, immigration and China.

So you just want more free stuff we can't afford? Obamacare increased medical costs contrary to the promise. And whether or not someone likes it the question is, is it constitutional? Many argue it is not.

 

I have a number of books by Buckley on my shelf and had the honor of hearing him speak numerous times, and consider your rant complete garbage. His guiding principal was to vote for the rightward-most viable candidate, which is clearly Trump. Unlike today's RINOs, Buckley always favored less taxation and regulation, and opposed a weak foreign policy such as Obama/Biden allowing ISIS to run rampant in the ME. Whenever Trump leaves office these RINOs are delusional if they think GOP rank and file will allow them back in their old positions of power.

 

Trump favors a WEAK foreign policy, obviously.

He has gone so far as to disparage and cancel participation in worled wide coordination as a method of placing the most possible pressure on those who are causing serious problems.

His insistance on unilateral action, combined with his proof that the US does NOT stand behind its word and his alienation of countries who have worked as allies to augment our power are all clear steps toward WEAKENING our global impact.

His attitudes toward the military are absolutely disgusting and demeaning. Plus, his unwillingness to listen to advice from our military or to form a strategy have caused huge reductions in the effectiveness of our military.

His ideas on moving away from trade partnerships toward tariffs is a flat out disaster in terms of leveraging our economic power.

So, again, Trump has absolutely and unequivocally reduced the strength of our foreign policy.

Trump is an isolationist that has NO respect for anyone outside of America. And, it shows in our every move.

 

Bunk. Trump recently took out an Iranian general who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American servicemen and was planning more mayhem. Biden and Harris opposed that, I suppose they think paying Iran almost $2B was a better option, that to a country that even the Obama/Biden state dept. described as a state sponsor of terror. As our Founders said, millions for defense, not one cent for tribute.

If it was a dumb deal, good.

The word of a previous administration isn't binding on Trump.

I have no clue what you're talking about, other than LW lies about statements he supposedly said. Trump hasn't sent our troops into harm's way in futile nation building wars that Globalists favor, and he has fixed many of the VA's problems that Obama/Biden ran on but did nothing to fix. My son had been waiting for years for his VA disability claim to go through, after Trump fast tracked such claims he won fairly quickly.

LOL, like Obama/Biden ignored our military advice on ISIS, resulting in them taking over a huge chunk of the ME? Another mess Trump cleaned up.

Getting rid of unfair trade practices is a good thing, for the US at least.

We disagree.

I don't care what foreigners think, no doubt they preferred to sponge off our defense spending, Trump is thankfully changing that.

 

IQ is just a measure of how well one takes the IQ test.

I agree with OP that wisdom is far more important. The big problem is that it isn't quantifiable. People like a number they can quickly measure against another number. The IQ score wassn attempt to objectively quantify intelligence for those too lazy to actually find out for themselves how well someone is able to apply their intelligence to life.

Anecdotally speaking, I know (knew) someone who's IQ is in the 165 range. He breezed through HS with a C average by acing all the exams but never turning in any homework. When he got to college, he failed out because he had no work ethic. Last I talked to him, he was the smartest Denny's server you'll ever meet.