SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The concept of "collective intelligence" is simple — it asserts that if a team performs well on one task, it will repeat that success on other projects, regardless of the scope or focus of the work. While it sounds good in theory, it doesn't work that way in reality, according to an Iowa State University researcher.
Marcus Credé, an assistant professor of psychology, says unlike individuals, group dynamics are too complex to predict a team's effectiveness with one general factor, such as intelligence. Instead, there are a variety of factors — leadership, group communication, decision-making skills —that affect a team's performance, he said.
Anita Woolley's research supporting collective intelligence quickly gained traction in the business world when it was first introduced in 2010. The attention was not surprising to Credé. Because organizations rely heavily on group work, managers are always looking for a "silver bullet" to improve team performance, he said. However, after re-analyzing the data gathered by Woolley and her colleagues, Credé and Garett Howardson, an assistant professor at Hofstra University, found the data didn't support the basic premise of collective intelligence. Their work is published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
[Source]: You would not ask a firefighter to perform open-heart surgery
Do you agree with this premise?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:39AM (4 children)
Unlike 'group intelligence', this is something that has been tested and heavily scrutinized. In the egalitarian zeitgeist of society today, there is naturally a strong desire to refute it, and there have been many attempts to do just that. It still holds very true. The reality is that people who do well at one cognitive task tend to do well at most others by any and all possible measurements. This is why I think it's increasingly cruel in today's society to pretend that everybody can do whatever they want if they just try hard enough. In some cases that is true. In most, it is not. And I imagine a large part of the sharp increase in anxiety, depression, and various other mental disorders today is this intersection of reality and ideology hitting people. For the vast majority of people you may as well tell them they can sprout wings and fly if they just try hard enough. They can try harder than any person has ever tried at anything, and it's not going to happen. That's going to lead to self doubt, depression, frustration, damaged self worth, and other such fun things -- all because we think we're being nice and progressive by pretending everybody can be everything.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday October 19 2017, @04:19PM (3 children)
Like people who are really good at counting objects are also really good at interacting with people? Sure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:11PM (2 children)
Whether or not someone is "good" at interacting with others is subjective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:32PM
Correct. Was Hitler "good" at interacting with others?
*ducks*
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:50PM
Just like any other nebulous category of human behavior. But you can always develop objective measures of various tasks associated with said category.