MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence
singularityhub.com
MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence
#2The 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.
Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence
#3The 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.
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.
Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence
#4The 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.
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.
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.
Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence
#5This 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.
Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 fr…
I think you're severely misunderstanding what it is they did in this experiment. The overall emphasis was not at all on the gender of the participants. As the article took pains to point out, they formed the groups based on a variety of intelligence scores - not gender.
Initially, they discovered that the most significant factors were "the high average social sensitivity of group members, a high rate of sharing who gets to communicate, and more females". Then they controlled for the number of females in each group, and discovered that the number of females actually didn't matter so much - the women in the study were just more likely (than the men) to have high social sensitivity, so a team with many women would be more likely to do well. But a team consisting of all men would also do very well, as long as you made sure to pick men with high social sensitivity.
Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence
#7Did 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.
Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence
#8Did 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.
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.
Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence
#9These 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.
Re: MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence
#10Did 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.
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 y…
>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.