Better to have a leader who caters to what people think or what people feel?

[Blue3]

Let me explain...


Is it better to have a leader who


1. tries to rationally persuade people to think in a way that agrees, and then acts with a consensus
(or doesn't persuade, but waits or only acts if there's a consensus of what people think)

(a leader who caters to what people think)


2. tries to find out what would make people happy (with themselves, their lives, their country, the world, etc.) and does everything he/she can to make it happen (even if sometimes doing something people don't think they want to do, unpopular in the short-term)

(a leader who caters to what people feel)




It seems to me that a leader who caters to what people THINK may be very rational and consensus-driven, but since people are usually emotion-driven, won't actually accomplish much and sometimes the consensus of the time will be thought to be wrong in future generations (ex: slavery). Less likely to think they made a mistake and try to change.

A leader who is this way (thinking over feeling) seems, to me, like they'd be more concerned with
the democratic process. For example, in a choice between democratic process or human rights, they'd probably choose democratic process (feel free to disagree). Less empathetic and less likely to accomplish much, but more likely to be self-restrained.

"It's important that we stick to the process, there is no consensus on single-payer healthcare, so even if many strongly believe it would make people feel happier and live better lives once it happens, I will not support it unless the people can agree."

A leader that values what you think, not as much what you feel.



It also seems to me that a leader who caters to what people FEEL would be very empathetic and intuitive and charismatic, but could be "hit or miss." Sometimes they could be very right about what will make people happier and their lives better. They also have the potential to be very wrong about what will make people happier and their lives better... but if they did see they made a mistake, more flexible and eager to fix it.

A leader who thinks this way (feeling over thinking) seems, to me, like they'd be more concerned with taking moral stands and doing what's right over what's popular. For example, in a choice between human rights and a democratic process, they'd choose human rights. More empathetic, but more likely to take the "philosopher-king" route.

"I know better than they do about what would make them happier, the people from West Virginia and Mississippi are voting against their own interests and are too ignorant to see it, I want to make them happy and healthy and they will prosper from single-payer healthcare too. Just like how they originally opposed Social Security but now love it."

A leader that values what you feel, not as much what you think.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The way this is phrased makes me think of T vs F on the MBTI. My preference would be towards the former type, but I must agree that such a leader would not be very effective in practice given how irrational most voters are.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is a false dichotomy insofar as rational thought proceeds from emotion and cannot be understood without reference to it.

I guess option 2, then.

[Kingpoleon]

A powerful mind is nothing without a powerful heart. For the one flavor is so strong, it should, nay, must be balanced with the other or else ruin the consumer's appetite.

[muon2]

In 2016 it would seem that Trump ran as a feelings-oriented leader and HRC ran as a thinking-oriented leader. Now as President I would argue that Trump leads from a position of what he senses people are feeling, not from a position of making a rational case for a policy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In 2016 it would seem that Trump ran as a feelings-oriented leader and HRC ran as a thinking-oriented leader. Now as President I would argue that Trump leads from a position of what he senses people are feeling, not from a position of making a rational case for a policy.

T***p is clearly almost entirely incapable of empathy, so to the extent that he did appeal to people's feelings, it was for purely opportunistic purposes.

[Goldwater]

In 2016 it would seem that Trump ran as a feelings-oriented leader and HRC ran as a thinking-oriented leader. Now as President I would argue that Trump leads from a position of what he senses people are feeling, not from a position of making a rational case for a policy.

T***p is clearly almost entirely incapable of empathy, so to the extent that he did appeal to people's feelings, it was for purely opportunistic purposes.

I think the problem here is that "rationality" vs "compassion" is a false dichotomy. Trying to act in a way that you consider logical does not make you heartless, and lacking in compassion does not necessarily make you rational.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In 2016 it would seem that Trump ran as a feelings-oriented leader and HRC ran as a thinking-oriented leader. Now as President I would argue that Trump leads from a position of what he senses people are feeling, not from a position of making a rational case for a policy.

T***p is clearly almost entirely incapable of empathy, so to the extent that he did appeal to people's feelings, it was for purely opportunistic purposes.

I think the problem here is that "rationality" vs "compassion" is a false dichotomy. Trying to act in a way that you consider logical does not make you heartless, and lacking in compassion does not necessarily make you rational.

That's exactly what I was trying to say in my earlier post.

[Blue3]

Of course, and I know that. But I'm saying IF there was a choice between the two...

[Goldwater]

In 2016 it would seem that Trump ran as a feelings-oriented leader and HRC ran as a thinking-oriented leader. Now as President I would argue that Trump leads from a position of what he senses people are feeling, not from a position of making a rational case for a policy.

T***p is clearly almost entirely incapable of empathy, so to the extent that he did appeal to people's feelings, it was for purely opportunistic purposes.

I think the problem here is that "rationality" vs "compassion" is a false dichotomy. Trying to act in a way that you consider logical does not make you heartless, and lacking in compassion does not necessarily make you rational.

That's exactly what I was trying to say in my earlier post.

Oh, I missed that post, so I guess we agree.

[Kingpoleon]

Of course, and I know that. But I'm saying IF there was a choice between the two...

Thought may be faulty. Emotions are always truth. This is a similar reason that of the other two quadrants, wisdom and physical, wisdom must always be chosen.