MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence

http://singularityhub.com/2011/08/26/mit-unravels-the-secrets-behind-collective-intelligence-hint-iq-not-so-important/

by hinto_ize • 15 years ago

95 23 15 years ago

lawlit2• 15 years ago

The study was done in only one perspective, wich is adding women to a group of men. In other words, men perform better in the presence of women. Next should be trying to add women to more women, or maybe adding men to a group of women, in order to have a bigger picture about how the collective intelligence works when mixing genders.

joe_the_user• 15 years ago

Did you read the article?

They studied a number of things and "... when they controlled for the number of women in a group, it was shown that it was the emotional sensitivity scores which won out."

Whatever its merits or flaws, the study was not simply about adding women to groups of men.

lawlit2• 15 years ago

1) I read the article 2) Did they try adding women to a women only group ? 3) Did they try adding men to a women only group ? 4) Did they try adding more women to a mixed group ? 5) Did they try adding more men to a mixed group ? 6) Did they try to remove all men from a group and replace them by women ? 6) Does this have to do with women being in a group, or does this just have to do with the group having elements from both genders collaborating ? The conclusions made in the article ,to me, seems more buzz-seeking than enriching.

gwern3• 15 years ago

This came up on LW before (http://lesswrong.com/lw/73w/study_on_group_intelligence/); I pointed them (http://lesswrong.com/lw/73w/link_study_on_group_intelligence...) to a previous comment I had seen dissecting the study: http://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-tea...

tl;dr: as one would expect, it's not that great and certainly doesn't justify the title.

Bud2• 15 years ago

Did they try to control for Tea Party members or Christian fundamentalists? I'm not saying this just for snark value; if you don't believe in science or the scientific method, for instance, it would seem a bit hard for you to contribute much in the way of intelligence on such questions. Same thing with "social sensitivity"; I would guess that's not a strength among isolationists or fundamentalists of various types.

learc833• 15 years ago

Wow I'd really like to see some data to back up these assertions.

Did they correct for poor welfare moms, blue collar union workers, or Muslims?

To think that only Tea party members and Christian fundamentalists are the only ones who might not understand or have a problem with the scientific method is absurd. I really doubt your average 20 year old wearing a Che shirt cares any more about the scientific method than your average Tea Partier.

What a ridiculous question.

VladRussian• 15 years ago

>To think that only Tea party members and Christian fundamentalists are the only ones who might not understand or have a problem with the scientific method is absurd. I really doubt your average 20 year old wearing a Che shirt cares any more about the scientific method than your average Tea Partier.

even a 20 years old wearing a Che shirt would see a connection [possibly after several trials] between stepping on a rake and a strange immediate sensation on the forehead and will cease to step on the rake thus manifesting basic grasp of the scientific method. Not so for a Tea Partier - he (or she) will every time think that it is God's will or somebody attacking them and their freedom to step on the rake and the Tea Partier will continue to step on the rake to assert their freedom and will also force others to do so.

Bud2• 15 years ago

Not ridiculous at all, although very predictable that this would be downvoted and controversial.

I didn't say "only" Tea Party folks or fundies, so I'd appreciate not being misquoted. I also didn't say anything about "understanding" the scientific method. I think a lot of those folks understand it quite well; they just choose to cynically lie about it for political reasons, which is the crucial difference here.

You bringing up Muslims or welfare moms says all we need to know about your particular attitudes. It's really not my fault if you have a problem acknowledging the factual reality here. The facts are, the Tea Party is actively hostile to science, the scientific method, and scientific conclusions in general. This isn't my opinion, it's not controversial, and it involves no tricky judgment calls. It's a fact.

zinkem• 15 years ago

Singling out a group of people and then identifying their thoughts as not worthwhile seems to undermine the conclusion of the study.

jcmhn• 15 years ago

These studies always leave out the negative side of social sensitivity: bullying and exclusion. In a task worked on for 5 hours everyone still has on their party manners.

bfe• 15 years ago

This dovetails to some degree with recent studies showing female asset managers both are less risk-tolerant and provide better overall returns than male asset managers, on average.

yummyfajitas3• 15 years ago

Do you have a citation for this?

If true, it's counterintuitive - one would expect the risk-tolerant investors to have higher returns.

amirmc• 15 years ago

I vaguely remember what the GP is talking about. IIRC it basically came down to women being more likely to 'let go' and not pour more good money after bad. I don't remember it being about 'risk-tolerance' specifically. More about women having less 'ego' in the game.

Sorry I can't find the links.

gwern3• 15 years ago

The way I remember it, it was simply that men traded more and so the fees (combined with some bad choices) damaged their returns: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.145...

hermannj314• 15 years ago

Recipe for success = just add women.

Mad Men for the win. I knew replacing our secretaries with computers would destroy America. Your team doesn't need more developers, you need a Peggy Olson.

MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence

Related Stories