I guess there's no way to tell from a biological perspective, but I have always admired studies on how leaders take in advice (for instance Thomas Preston's study 'Presidents and their Inner Circle, or Phil Tetlock's book 'Expert Political Judgment') or more recently studies on Leadership capital by Paul 't Hart and co-authors. Perhaps that helps.

Dear S.

Kuipers: Thank you so much for your comment, and I hoped that you give your own understanding to that point. Thank again

Biologically, a brilliant mind is not necessary for survival, quite often goes against survival. Good instincts and context awareness (this probably relates mostly to the sense of smell, i.e. pheromones perception and interpretation. The latter are more important in survival. A brilliant mind can foresee long range the consequences of present actions and can get trapped in indecision. A less brilliant mind will take short term decisions and act. In the end, the reality will change outside any brilliant mind capacity of prediction, simply because there are more than one correct answer to any question. The point is there is no human consciousness/mind to act [successfully] in isolation but as a [little] feedback loop of the surrounding world.

Simply, the question of survival of a single individual and the more complex structure of individuals are different things. The more complex structure - the more complex its "cells", at least to a certain extent, then information is redistributed between the levels of organization with some simplification of substructures (the complexity of DNA code in humans is not the greatest, however we are now at the top of evolution because we developed a different structure, which took over part of the function). "Brilliant mind" is the result of natural selection and is claimed by evolution, on other scales.

 Dear Alecu:  I used to read your comments on RG, and probably in most cases many of them disagree  with !but in fact I always like your comments, those comments  of yours have very good understanding to the topic under discussion. Now, you have noticed  that brilliant minds are not necessarily  for survival,  but we need to talk about survived individuals,  since we expect that probability of death is the same on brilliant or normal minds. Thank you so much for your nice comment.

Dear Komarov: Thank you so much for your comment, but I thought that human DNA is the most complex ! Thanks 

Dear Medhat: Your comments can be very impactful and one few occasion they profoundly impressed me. Many of my comments have the purpose to jog minds and stir off the box thinking. I don't mind your disagreement and I enjoy the remote relationship. I do have a particular belief as of what I am and what consciousness is/could be in general. Human interaction is defining human consciousness.

Dear Alecu: I believe that it is really nice to look to the way of your thinking as an impressive one, I tried that in my past life but some  people still against me ! However, too many people do really  appreciate

what I do, so, I am still going on my way. I have to congratulate you for taking that way. Thanks

I remembered following for a little while a life show called "Survivor". One series started with two groups of people on a desert island competing for survival. The losing team of a skill test would lose one member. Later the competition would develop between the few survivors left from early stages. Invariably, the winner wouldn't be the most generous leader but the one that seemed the dumbest and the most helpless in the early stages. The one that would avoid conflict, preserve it's own resources and seek for help... while looking helpless. I stopped watching after the second series out of boredom, everything seemed so predictable. I couldn't help but think of it as a valid experiment but not directly and entirely applicable to real life, mostly because of the closed "domain", both in space and natural events, rather similar to life in big cities than on a desert island. Life tends to confirm that since there still are brilliant people, i.e. they weren't dropped off the life-survivor-game by, supposedly, Darwinist evolution.

Dear Alecu,  Dear Komarov : Thank you so much for your kind comments.

Good question and informative responses. Thanks!

Make a small or big survey on any level of politicians for their academic qualifications (% marks obtained in different examinations from childhood etc.), you will be able to come to a single conclusion in almost every country of the world.

I think all of us know the possible result of such survey and we need not to express it here.

Am I wrong?

It is a good question provokes informative answers . Thanks

In my opinion, I think some political leaders have great minds and have distinguished themselves despite negative externalities from the forces of oppositions and those who never want something good for that country.

They would have done better without interference.

I say no. They are just good at cheating!

most of them 0. By chance

Most of political leaders took over their positions by other partner, the party ! Who finance. who manage, who decide to choose that person for that position ? It is a long story needs investigation to reach the true answer. However, even those leaders took over the position by a coupe, that coupe is still managed by a foreign force!so ,it is so complicated. Then, we find some good leaders in some third world countries, then some big powers didn't like, then killed or kicked off! Thanks.

Otto von Bismarck is an outstanding leader. It could be used as a benchmark for the category "brilliant mind political leader".

Yes my Dear Alecu, with this man he was, but this kind of leaders to my understanding were born leaders! I mean, they are biologically, genetically smart enough to lead others ! Thanks.

Dear Medhat, One could see Otto von Bismarck as a class representative. As individual, having low probability to be born but equal probability to be born at grass roots or tip of the sociaety.However, the thinking should be kept on the particulars of the Prussian society, i.e. small kingdoms were princes interact directly with the grass roots and may occasionally drive the ox to till the field. That educated them as good leaders, both by interacting with the led and brushing elbows with the privileged. And, as they say, behind a succesful man there is a smart [and modest] woman. Otto looks more like an exception than a rule since there more than few key parameters that made him successful [I listed only few]. If anything, Otto would confirm the theory that political inteligence and scientific inteligence may be rooted in the same DNA sequence.