Grissom or Warrick?

I watch CSI on a regular basis, and I love two characters; Grissom and Warrick. The first is the epitome of the objective scientific personality who let’s no prejudice color its judgment of the problem under investigation. He’s cool, observant, really engrossed in science, and although he has a specialized area in which he excels; he’s well acquainted with the general topics of his work. The only thing he’s passionate about is his science. On the other hand, Warrick is a red-blooded man who is masterful of his profession; he’s observant, experienced, self-confident, strong, and passionate. It’s his passion that may sometimes cloud his judgment, and that’s what he tries to learn from his mentor Grissom.
Watching the show, I figured I may be closer in personality to Warrick, but striving to be Grissom. I sometimes question this desire to be so objective, cool, and not prejudiced. I mean is it better to be the perfect scientist and let nothing affect your scientific thinking? Or is it a good thing to have the imperfection of letting passion cause you to make mistakes every once in a while? Each side has its attractions, but each side has its drawbacks. Some may think that if a person is passionate, he won’t be able to cool down and be objective. I argue the contrary, because as time passes, I find myself more and more “cooling down” and less inclined to let my passion rule me. But I don’t know if this is a part of the “growing up” process, a transformation I’m cognitively making inside of me, or an inevitable phase you pass through as you “think” you have more knowledge.
I can’t decide which side to choose, and I’m afraid that by the time I make up my mind, I’ll have committed all the stupid mistakes people do in the name of passion, and I hate mistakes because regret becomes overwhelming.