Slashdot Mirror
Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others
HughPickens.com writes Everyone who is part of an organization — a company, a nonprofit, a condo board — has experienced the pathologies that can occur when human beings try to work together in groups. Now the NYT reports on recent research on why some groups, like some people, are reliably smarter than others. In one study, researchers grouped 697 volunteer participants into teams of two to five members. Each team worked together to complete a series of short tasks, which were selected to represent the varied kinds of problems that groups are called upon to solve in the real world. One task involved logical analysis, another brainstorming; others emphasized coordination, planning and moral reasoning. Teams with higher average I.Q.s didn't score much higher on collective intelligence tasks than did teams with lower average I.Q.s. Nor did teams with more extroverted people, or teams whose members reported feeling more motivated to contribute to their group's success. Instead, the smartest teams were distinguished by three characteristics (PDF). First, their members contributed more equally to the team's discussions, rather than letting one or two people dominate the group. Second, their members scored higher on a test called Reading the Mind in the Eyes, which measures how well people can read complex emotional states from images of faces with only the eyes visible. Finally, teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. It appeared that it was not "diversity" (having equal numbers of men and women) that mattered for a team's intelligence, but simply having more women. This last effect, however, was partly explained by the fact that women, on average, were better at "mindreading" than men.
Interestingly enough, a second study has now replicated the these findings for teams that worked together online communicating purely by typing messages into a browser . "Emotion-reading mattered just as much for the online teams whose members could not see one another as for the teams that worked face to face. What makes teams smart must be not just the ability to read facial expressions, but a more general ability, known as "Theory of Mind," to consider and keep track of what other people feel, know and believe."
Interestingly enough, a second study has now replicated the these findings for teams that worked together online communicating purely by typing messages into a browser . "Emotion-reading mattered just as much for the online teams whose members could not see one another as for the teams that worked face to face. What makes teams smart must be not just the ability to read facial expressions, but a more general ability, known as "Theory of Mind," to consider and keep track of what other people feel, know and believe."
What makes teams smart must be not just the ability to read facial expressions, but a more general ability, known as "Theory of Mind," to consider and keep track of what other people feel, know and believe."
That sounds a whole like Empathy to me, but dressed up in some fancy new clothes.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
"replicated the these findings for teams that worked together online communicating purely by typing messages into a browser"
So I guess that emoticons work for "out-of-band" communications. :-)
Of course, if it were Linus Torvalds going the ASCII art route, it would probably be more like "You #-( @@ $@%$ %*^@^##% dummy!" :-(
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
are thought to be there specifically so others are able to see who you are communicating with. Improving cooperation between people.
This doesn't bode well for those of us who lean autistic.
I just had this feeling all along that the results would turn out this way.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
It could very well be that females average better during the group portion of tasks, the part that requires a lot of communication and empathy; then when everyone goes back to their desks men average better at _____. I know in my own life women tend to be more interested in having in-depth conversations and understanding each other, on average. Mean tend to be more interested in gadgets and how they work. Again, I'm speaking of averages - individuals vary considerably.
Physically, men tend to do better at tasks involving short bursts of strength like dead lifting, while women tend to have more stamina. It's not unlikely that females mind tend to be better at understanding another person's point of view, while men might be better at disregarding the feelings of a bill collector and hanging up on them or interrupting, not allowing the collector to go off an tangents not appropriate to the issue at hand. That seems to be true from my experience - women generally aren't as comfortable being "rude" . When there is a conflict, it's sometimes effective to first give someone with high estrogen a chance to understand bo
To quote from the report (c is a magic number they have calculated to indicate how successful groups were at collaborative tasks)
"c was positively and significantly correlated with the proportion of females in the group ( r =0.23, P =0.007)"
"there was as ignificant correlation between c and the average social sensitivity of group members, [...](r=0.26,P=0.002)"
What? Since when 0.23-26 correlation is 'significant' correlation? Just the fact that everything else they have measured had even lower effect doesn't make 0.25 a significant correlation.
But this is probably the effect of composition of research team. With 2 women and 3 men they had a significantly lower chances of producing something good... If they would only replace one of the men with a women, I'm sure results would be more forthcoming.
When there is a conflict, it's sometimes effective to first give someone with high estrogen a chance to understand both sides' viewpoints and work out a mutually agreeable solution. If that ddoesdoesn't work because the other side is being aggressive, it's often someone with more testerone who is best suited to put their foot down, to say "no, we're not doing that" and stay firm even if it hurts someone's feelings.
Once more, I'm speaking in terms of averages. There are also empathic men and coarse women. Vanzant could probably kick Chrisley's ass.
intelligence. The study would not be publishable.
I wonder if the Slashdot web design team can see the white's of each other's eyes, or if they are blinded by the 122px margin.
[FUCK BETA]
I think the genetic differences are overblown. Social differences are a much bigger factor, and either gender can easily learn the skills needed to be a good communicator and team player. Rather than being a gender issue, it sounds more like a training issue.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Explain the Apollo program then. What a joke this site has become. Nothing but Bolshevik propaganda, in one article after another. I'm surprised this one got through, as it doesn't mention 'climate change'.
I wonder whether you would get a different result when "the shit hits the fan" rather than with "let's play some games". I have seen women who work very well under pressure, but anecdotally I think I have seen more women come to peaces under pressure than men. Mind you when I have seen men have caved in under pressure it has been catastrophic, like six months off work with stress related disease or getting fired for throwing a monitor across the room.
Instead of some simple tasks which anyone can do, if we throw in some tasks that could only be done by one or two persons in the team, then it would be more realistic. Something like some step needs derivative of a function and only one team member remembers calculus 101, or requires translating a passage from French to English.. The moment you introduce variation in skill sets among the team members, agile for software breaks down. This experiment too might have different results.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Has anyone looked at the graphs and the "linear correlation" between RME and the "collective intelligence" from the study?
There's all kinds of wrong in there. First of all, looks like the dots of the study show a - very scattered - vertical pattern, with actually the best teams seeming to have a rather average RME (higher end though).
Also, who says there isn't a correlation with intelligence in general and RME? Seems to me people "who care" or "pay better attention" will be better at RME as well.
And what's the task to be solved? Apparently seems to be a sudoku puzzle. If you don't really know how that goes to begin with, you're already at loss (even if you're smarter).
So what were they supposed to say about the study? That their actual observation (that the more women in the group, the more successful the collaboration) was wrong - after all someone on Slashdot with anecdotal experience knows better because figuring out whether women are open to sexual advances is difficult for him?
There are studies that show that women are less likely to speak up when outnumbered by men. So if the most successful teams were ones where everyone contributed equally, it seems like those groups would tend to either have more women so that women are more willing to speak up, or no women at all (assuming that men are all likely to contribute in that environment).
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/2...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...
I think the genetic differences are overblown. Social differences are a much bigger factor, and either gender can easily learn the skills needed to be a good communicator and team player. Rather than being a gender issue, it sounds more like a training issue.
I think it's not so much a question of learning the skills, but actually employing them at the appropriate time. Plus the difference in perspective on how to handle a problem. A man raids the fridge and takes the last piece of cake, even though you had told him you were saving it for one of the kids when they get home. When the issue comes up, the man says "So I'll go out and buy another cake. Problem solved!" The woman says "That's not the real problem here."
The guy doesn't understand - he'll "fix" the immediate problem, and as far as he's concerned, that ends it. The woman is thinking of all the other times he tried to "fix" a problem because he just didn't listen in the first place. So the man is thinking "I fixed it - why is she still nagging me?" and the woman is thinking "How can he *not* get it?"
Having lived on both sides of the gender divide, all I can offer up as an explanation is "it's complicated." I get where both sides are coming from, and the fact that it happens so often seems to point to gender being tied into it. Is it because men are socialized to fix the immediate problem, while women are socialized to look beyond the immediate problem? Is it a testosterone-fueled approach vs an estrogen-fueled approach? It's probably a bit of both, which of course is what makes life interesting :-) Then again, what do I know?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Ever wonder why most guys don't feel the constant need voice their feelings? Perhaps it's because men don't have to, they are masters of non-verbal communication skills.
No, it's because voicing your feelings is seen by men as a sign of weakness, so they bottle it inside, get frustrated, angry, and when it finally comes out, run for cover. On the other hand, it's seen by women as a sharing exercise to build friendship and trust.
And both sexes generally perceive it the same way. Women regard men who are too "emo" as weak, and men regard women who don't talk about emotions as "ice queens."
This creates problems for women because they can't resolve conflicts with the men in the group by having everyone put it all out there nor by attacking the problem the same way as men do, so instead we use a more indirect approach, one that increases cooperation without making the men feel threatened. So, instead of pulling a Linus Torvalds and saying "Your idea is absolutely $(*&^&^$#+)_(* crap", we'll say something like "Maybe we're all looking at this the wrong way" (instead of singling out someone for blame). "We've probably gotten stale, so maybe we should spend a bit of time thinking of other approaches, and get back to this next week?"
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Teams are great for doing parallel repetetive tasks such as testing thousands of compounds to pharmacological activity or building a bridge or whacking out 10K lines of boiler plate code. But if you want inspiration or genius or a completely take on a problem then you're looking at individuals (even if they've stood on shoulders of giants). Einstein didn't think up Relativity in a scrum with powerpoint presentations (ok they weren't around then but you get the point), nor did Turing come up his theories on conference calls.
This will sound arrogant but I don't care - teams are great for the slightly dim and/or lazy people in the world because it means they don't have to put so much effort in or think too much. Hence why management tend to be so fond of them.
I am autistic and it is true I can't work in a team, at least not with neurotypical people who can't communicate properly and who rely far too much on emotions instead of simply talking. Each time I tried, I always felt extremely frustrated with the others and the others felt extremely frustrated with me.
Right now I'm a computer consultant. The major problem I face is when I must meet clients. Even in a technical meeting, people are in constant need of socialization. If they don't have this need satisfied, they simply can't work. So in a meeting, I can't think because I must use all of my mind to provide this socialization to others.
My solution is to communicate mostly with emails and telecommute. Of course I can't work for long for the same client, because after a while that client feels frustrated I don't want to meet more often with him. I now live in Quebec, which means I speak French, and the simple fact that I always say "vous" and can't say "tu" to a client frustrate them after a while.
Having said that, when the team is clearly hierarchical and tasks are clearly divided, I outperform about everyone.
An example of that was my two years of military service (as a conscript). I was promoted corporal in 6 months, then master corporal 6 months after and sergeant after another 6 months (in my regiment, there was only two places for sergeant conscripts and I was one of those two).
Because of my military experience, I do think autistic people can work very well in a team. The problem is our world is not a technocracy nor a meritocracy like in the military, but a "socialocracy". It is ruled and shaped by people who have the best social skill, not by people who have the best technical skills. And of course, "hypersocial" people want a world where their social skills is the most important. So anyone who doesn't play their game, using the rules which give them an advantage, is someone they don't want to work with.
Doesn't the USAF have a study somewhere that women are better at communicating data, period?
They would use female radio operators since they found it easier to understand female voices over lossy radio channels. Maybe something to do with the higher pitched voices, or better use of intonation in language, or maybe something empathic or psychological that we don't understand but the effect was there.
Then there are the Germans who refuse to take orders from female voices to the extent that GPS manufacturers have to make special male recordings for those markets. Was that a factor during WWII as well?
On the flip side, was it the USAF or NASA that was investigating the long term social groups for extended space missions, and found that grous of all-men could get along, but introduce one female and they start fighting for her attentions? But that was still better than an all-female crew, who would eventually but almost always turn on each other after too much time working together?
Man here (from birth)... I don't see how selfishness is an inherently male trait. I would never think taking someone else's food was OK as long as I replaced it. Obviously, at the moment there's a problem, and fixing problems you created is clearly inferior to not causing them in the first place. I would not want someone who wasted time and professional reputation, by constantly fixing the problems they caused, on my team.
What I see with men-- including myself, of course-- is that we DO want to fix problems, and save the discussion for later. "Lessons learned", "post-mortem meeting", etc. Women don't seem to like that. For some reason, they want to address the collateral issues at the same time, or even defer the solution in order to perform in-depth problem analysis. This seeming lack or urgency is frustrating to me, personally.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
. . . getting fired for throwing a monitor across the room.
Evolution is pretty quick to weed out individuals of the primary-care-giving gender who chuck the thing they're holding when stressed. Turning into a crying heap is a much, much safer option when holding the baby.
I _think_ Barbara's point wasn't about the eating, but about which problem we address. Suppose a stereotypical woman accidentally eats the cake - she wasn't listening or whatever. It's discovered and you "confront" her. She'll address the problem - the fact that you're mad. That's the main problem that she sees, the offense caused. She'll apologize, offset it by doing something else nice, etc - never once thinking to go get a another piece of cake.
An hour later, she'll ask how you're feeling about the event. The man will reply "I feel hungry, because you ate my damn cake.". :)
The guy is more likely to identify the problem as the fact that the cake is now gone, and forget to address the offense he caused.
This might be a somewhat silly example. Where I think it has practical application is when a friend is telling you about a problem they are having. A woman most wants to vent, a friend should listen. Her male friend's first instinct may be to help her SOLVE the problem. She may you to listen to her problem and perhaps her feelings about it. When a male friend is telling you about a problem, it means they want to borrow your trailer, which will solve the problem.
Obviously this is a big generalization, but there is significant truth in it.
Doesn't this study show that women and men don't work as well together as they do separately, and that trying to increase diversity results in less effective teams, and was a bad idea all along?
No. What it says is that team performance increases as the number of women increase. So teams of all men do worst, teams with some women do better, and teams with all women do best. I doubt if this is actually true, but that is what the study says.
We see few Nobel prizes going to teams of women researchers, few successful corporations with all female executives, and few political systems run by women. If women are so much better at teamwork, why don't we see more successful teams of women? Why isn't there a private equity firm that specializes in acquiring companies, firing all the male executives, replacing them with women, and then cashing in as the profits soar? The results of this study don't mesh with reality.
The more women, the better. I suppose that's why there are so many successful "all-women" companies out there.
I'm starting to wonder if all you jokers read the same paper FTFA as I did, and not just the article. The paper points points out in no uncertain terms that the inverse correlation between group performance and participation dwarfs the (almost insignificant by comparison) correlation between number of women and group performance.
Is there a correlation between number of females and group performance? Yes, but it's only marginally stronger than the correlation between the highest-IQ of the group and group performance. The inverse correlation (-0.41,0.001) between group participation and group performance is a good deal larger AND highly statistically significant compared to the extremely weak correlation between number of women and group performance (0.23,0.007) which is merely statistically significant. And really, a p-value of 0.007 when they only tested 600 odd people (not 600 odd groups)?
They call this science?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
You don't have to be autistic to find oversocialisation in work meetings to be a problem. Where I work easily half our team meetings are taken up with jokes and banter. Its ridiculous because we actually have work to discuss and work to do after the meetings.
If only people would stop cracking jokes things would be so much better for me. We are there, at the work place, to do a job. That job is not being comedians, its being engineers.
And I am very proudly neurotypical.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Unfortunately, you're forever blinded to this world.
That was his point.
And it's a loss for the world as well.
are thought to be there specifically so others are able to see who you are communicating with. Improving cooperation between people.
This doesn't bode well for those of us who lean autistic.
Communication is a two way street.
In my experience with Autistic people, you can easily overcome the difficulties they have with talking by being a good listener. Having an Autistic person in your team can be a boon, as long as you can communicate with them (especially if you work in IT).
But being a good team is more than just communication (which is talking and listening, people to talk but dont listen are terrible communicators, even worse than an autistic person) but organisational skills. A team needs to organise itself into an effective unit and avoid petty squabbles.
Personality matters a lot, teams benefit from large numbers of assertive personalities (I win, you win) but suffer from aggressive (I win, you lose), Passive (I lose, you win) and passive aggressive (I lose, you lose) personalities. Basically the majority of the team members have to be committed to seeing every team member win. People committed to seeing themselves or another lose sabotage team efforts (whether consciously or unconsciously).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.