It was somewhere between the spice markets of Jaipur and a dusty roadside tea stall that my colleague, sipping cardamom chai with the flair of a philosopher, dropped a phrase that has echoed in my mind ever since:
“Great minds think alike,” he said, “but fools seldom differ.”
We both paused, the clink of our glasses punctuating the thought. Was it an insult wrapped in wisdom? A proverb with a split personality? Or a travel-induced koan? Whatever it was, it stuck—because it’s both hilariously accurate and sneakily profound.
Let me explain.
When Great Minds Think Alike
On the third day of our trip to India, a problem arose. A key supplier’s presentation was riddled with vague buzzwords—“synergies,” “optimization,” “next-gen disruption”—but no substance. My colleague and I exchanged a glance across the room. No eye roll needed. No whispered side comment. We were in sync.
Later, when we regrouped, we said in unison: “We need a plan B.”
That, I believe, was a “great minds think alike” moment. Two professionals with different backgrounds, shaped by diverse experiences, arriving at the same insight, not because we were echoing each other mindlessly, but because the data, instinct, and purpose led us to a shared truth.
When great minds think alike, it’s often the result of convergent wisdom, not shallow agreement. It’s when collaboration elevates insight, not dulls it.
But Fools Seldom Differ
Contrast that with dinner a few nights later at a rooftop restaurant. Two other colleagues—let’s call them “A” and “B”—were in complete agreement about which dish to order. Without reading the menu beyond the bolded titles, they both declared:
“Paneer tikka. Obviously. It’s the only thing worth eating in India.”
Never mind the thousand regional dishes on offer. Never mind dietary needs. Never mind that one of them claimed to be “trying to avoid dairy.” Their agreement wasn’t wisdom—it was laziness disguised as certainty.
Predictably, the food was mediocre, the stomachs were unsettled, and the lesson was served:
Agreement isn’t intelligence. Sometimes it’s just shared inertia.
When fools seldom differ, it’s not because they’re right. It’s because they never challenged themselves—or each other.
The Wisdom in Divergence
So what do we make of this paradoxical phrase?
“Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ.”
It reminds us that consensus can be a signal—or a trap. It can mean you’re in sync with intelligent, discerning peers. Or it can mean you’re stuck in a groupthink echo chamber, too polite or too passive to challenge unproductive ideas.
In talent development and leadership, this matters. Teams thrive when there’s psychological safety to disagree constructively and curiously. Homogeneous thinking might feel harmonious, but it rarely gives birth to innovation.
So next time you and a colleague nod in agreement, ask yourself:
Are we arriving at the same idea through insight and rigor?
– Or are we just avoiding the discomfort of debate?
In the End…
The best minds don’t always agree. They intersect with nuance.
And the wisest fools are those willing to dare to differ—before the paneer tikka bites back.
Peregrine Talent Development helps leaders build environments where both alignment and divergence are welcomed—where teams are not only thinking together but also thinking better.
Because sometimes, a little difference makes all the difference.
Bibliography
- Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.
- Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard. Broadway Books.
- Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
- Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32.
- Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others. NeuroLeadership Journal, (1), 44–52.
- Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few. Anchor Books.
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.