I heard this story on NPR. The guy said that even though there were results to the study, they didn't have a way to measure group intelligence effectively yet.
So the first part of the statement, 'The "intelligence" of a group can be measured, according to a new study, and it has little to do with the brain power of its individual members,' they say is true, but the second part is false.
Something that annoyed me about the study though is that they indicated that a sign of intelligence was taking in everyone's input and making a balanced decision. I'm sure a "group of intelligent people" came up with that one.
It does seem that those criteria would naturally lead to a team with equal participation being judged as more intelligent.
What appeals to me most about this article is the idea that a team's performance can be measured somewhat objectively. What remains to be seen is whether the team with the highest performance on the artificial tests yielded better performance in real-world scenarios.
If it's possible to put together a good team based on simple tests, it would be beneficial to every organization.
3 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 18.7 ms ] threadSo the first part of the statement, 'The "intelligence" of a group can be measured, according to a new study, and it has little to do with the brain power of its individual members,' they say is true, but the second part is false.
Something that annoyed me about the study though is that they indicated that a sign of intelligence was taking in everyone's input and making a balanced decision. I'm sure a "group of intelligent people" came up with that one.
What appeals to me most about this article is the idea that a team's performance can be measured somewhat objectively. What remains to be seen is whether the team with the highest performance on the artificial tests yielded better performance in real-world scenarios.
If it's possible to put together a good team based on simple tests, it would be beneficial to every organization.