IQ Question [Attn: Sklansky]

[Jcrew]

If two people working together got the same IQ scores as one person over a battery of tests but scored less individually, would their success rate be equivalent to the single person over a range of intellectual endeavors if they are allowed to work together?

[purnell]

I have a hard time accepting your hypothetical. An IQ exam is not something you can cram for. It is supposed to measure your ability to solve complex problems. I don't think two 120's will be able to match the score of a 160, even working together.

On the other hand, two heads are better than one (usually) in the real world. For example, it would be trivial for two mediocre poker players to beat a good player by working together. In games like poker, we call that cheating. In business we call it teamwork or "synergy".

[Darryl_P]

I'd say probably not because of the time (and information) lost in communication with one another, not to mention practical stuff like getting tired, hungry, getting interrupted, or going to the bathroom at different times vs. the single dude who always does those things at the same time as himself.

[RJT]

I like these posts where the subject is something like: Attn: Sklansky. I really love the ones that go “Hey, Sklansky!" Like it is the guy’s first name. Or all of his name, like Bono or Prince (Liberace? - lol - sorry David, I have a warped sense of humor.)

Makes me feel like I am living in West Side Story or Grease, or better Rocky: Yo, Sklansky. That one is gonna be mine, don’t anyone steal it: Yo, Sklansky!

[Warren Whitmore]

I must disagree. Warren Buffett once said that if you took all the high IQ Havard buissness professors & all the top fund producers and put them togeter "I would beat them as an individual." "My idea of an intelligent conversation is talking to myself while I look in the mirror."

He went on to explain that when you put a bunch of brilliant people togeter you do not get thier sum, or even anything above the smartest person in the room. What you get is their average. Whenever I hear him speak it makes me glad that I am an introvert.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
He went on to explain that when you put a bunch of brilliant people togeter you do not get thier sum, or even anything above the smartest person in the room. What you get is their average. Whenever I hear him speak it makes me glad that I am an introvert.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Buffett is right. Novel ideas and unique solutions are always produced by individuals, not teams.

BTW I am also an unapologetic introvert (some say misanthrope). Now that is a strange sort of kinship, isn't it?

[David Sklansky]

"He went on to explain that when you put a bunch of brilliant people togeter you do not get thier sum, or even anything above the smartest person in the room. What you get is their average."

That is so obviously wrong it is mind boggling. Especially if you are talking about things like relatively equally talented people consulting on an IQ test, an SAT question, or making the right chess move. You have to be EXTREMELY STUPID to not see this. (Buffett's comments are less obviously wrong in other situations, but still usually wrong.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"He went on to explain that when you put a bunch of brilliant people togeter you do not get thier sum, or even anything above the smartest person in the room. What you get is their average."

That is so obviously wrong it is mind boggling. Especially if you are talking about things like relatively equally talented people consulting on an IQ test, an SAT question, or making the right chess move. You have to be EXTREMELY STUPID to not see this. (Buffett's comments are less obviously wrong in other situations, but still usually wrong.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Los Alamos and Bletchley Park are good examples

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Warren Buffett once said ... "My idea of an intelligent conversation is talking to myself while I look in the mirror." He went on to explain that when you put a bunch of brilliant people togeter you do not get their sum, or even anything above the smartest person in the room. What you get is their average. Whenever I hear him speak it makes me glad that I am an introvert.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, the elusive quest of GOING IT ALONE. And then some Americans complain when others talk about the Cowboy Complex.

Face it: Man is not an island, even if Man wanted desperately to be. (Which Man didn't, otherwise Man would not make it!)

The examples of "going-it-alone" individuals such as great conquerors or inventors are usually presented by omitting the circumstances and the giants' shoulders on which the Great Man stood.

Oh well. We had this little conversation in the Politics page with Libertarians who dismiss any idea of "societal interaction". They equate it with tyranny. Well, when you are reading Lenin, you are interacting with Lenin, sorry! When you are turning on the computer to read this message, you are interacting with a large part of society, including the guy who pays your electricity bill.

A few folks have this notion that social interaction means saying "Good morning" to your landlord or something. It actually means a lot more.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
If two people working together got the same IQ scores as one person over a battery of tests but scored less individually, would their success rate be equivalent to the single person over a range of intellectual endeavors if they are allowed to work together?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that range of intellectual endeavors is an IQ test, yes. If it is like an IQ test, quite likely. Otherwise, I think the predictve ability of the IQ test would likely drop.

An IQ test, first and foremost, measures a person's ability to produce the correct result on an IQ test. It measures a few types of problem-solving capability, but it is anything, but the authoritative test of intelligence or ability in intellectual endeavors. There's also the fuzzy measure of success that makes things even messier. Some people are good at tests, but suck at life.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
"He went on to explain that when you put a bunch of brilliant people togeter you do not get thier sum, or even anything above the smartest person in the room. What you get is their average."

That is so obviously wrong it is mind boggling. Especially if you are talking about things like relatively equally talented people consulting on an IQ test, an SAT question, or making the right chess move. You have to be EXTREMELY STUPID to not see this. (Buffett's comments are less obviously wrong in other situations, but still usually wrong.)

[/ QUOTE ]

In the case of an SAT question, a chess move (I suppose), or an IQ test, no one is covering new ground. The correct solution is known in advance.

However, only an individual can create a new idea. A peer group may help or hinder the process, but it is the individual mind that creates.

My (limited) experiences working with groups of smart people have resulted in the clashing of egos and little else. Most of the highly intelligent people I have known are rather childish and given to name-calling and one-upsmanship, and do not work well together.

[MMMMMM]

An interesting related example:

Garry Kasparov played a chess game against "The World Team." "The World Team", consisting of over 58,000 individuals and led in analysis by four young grandmasters and masters, posted possible moves and lines of analysis on the Internet, which they then voted on every 48 hours (although they had only 24 hours to respond after Kasparov posted his move). After four months, the "The World Team" conceded defeat by voting to resign to Kasparov on the 62nd move. (A grandmaster later commented that "the world" apparently wasn't really all that good).

[excerpt)"World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov Defeats World Team In Kasparov vs. the World on MSN.com
World Team Resigns on Move 62

REDMOND, Wash., Oct. 25, 1999 — World chess champion Garry Kasparov achieved victory Friday afternoon in the Kasparov vs. the World online chess tournament on the MSN.com TM network of Internet services. With 51 percent of the world team voting to resign, the intense game ended at move 62 after four challenging months of play, during which the world team proved to be a formidable opponent.

"Although I have technically won the chess game, I think the real winners are everyone who participated on behalf of the world team," Kasparov said. "The world team was able to take advantage of Internet technology and join together to mount a real challenge. Over the past four months, I have been highly impressed by the proficiency of the collective world team and truly have enjoyed the competition."

Kasparov, from Moscow, and event moderator Danny King, from London, will hold a live public chat on MSN.com Wednesday, Oct. 27, 10 a.m. PDT at http://www.chat.msnbc.com/ . Kasparov will take questions about the game and his winning strategy.

"Launched as an experiment in combining chess with the social power of the Internet, Kasparov vs. the World evolved into a fierce, exciting chess game that fascinated more than 3 million World Wide Web visitors from more than 75 countries," said Diane McDade, MSN.com public relations manager at Microsoft Corp. "We congratulate and thank Mr. Kasparov; our teenage chess analysts, Etienne Bacrot, Florin Felecan, Irina Krush and Elisabeth P ä htz; our moderator, Danny King; and all the members of the world team, who kept the world champion at bay for 62 moves."

The Kasparov vs. the World online chess game, which began June 21, 1999, has united chess players of all skill levels from around the world in a cooperative effort against the reigning world chess champion. With more than 50,000 individuals submitting move votes, Kasparov vs. the World on MSN.com has been one of the largest interactive gaming events in history.

The quality of the chess played throughout the Kasparov vs. the World game has been acknowledged by chess experts and third parties around the world as one of the best public chess games ever documented.

"This game has been a real treat to watch," said international grandmaster and expert commentator Danny King. "The world team members should be proud of the game they played. They went up against Garry Kasparov at his best for more than 60 moves." As moderator, King provided commentary on the match and hosted tournament-related activities such as chats and guest appearances.

Over the past four months, world team members from across the globe exchanged ideas and information in near-real-time on Web site bulletin boards, to bring the world chess champion to more than 60 moves -- an accomplishment that could only take place on the Internet.

"I think this event was great because it promoted chess, and it gave anyone on the Internet the chance to learn more about chess and play against Garry Kasparov," said Irina Krush, one of the four World Team Coaches who guided the world team throughout the game. "It's good that we have a world champion who is interested in doing this. I was glad to be a part of it and look forward to other MSN.com-sponsored chess events."

About Kasparov vs. the World

Kasparov vs. the World was an online, interactive chess tournament hosted by the MSN.com network of Internet services. Over a four-month period the game site experienced the following:
•

More than 58,000 unique world team voters
•

More than 3 million unique visitors
•

A total of 28 million page views
•

Participants from more than 75 different countries

Kasparov, playing as white, made the first move on June 21 and subsequent moves every 48 hours thereafter. Once Kasparov's move was posted to MSN.com, the world team, playing as black, had 24 hours to cast its vote for a countermove. The move receiving the most votes was selected as the "world's" move against Kasparov.

Throughout the chess match, the world team made its moves under the guidance of four chess experts, who acted as World Team Coaches and suggested moves and strategies to counter each of Kasparov's moves. The World Team Coaches are next-generation chess champions who have gained recognition in the international chess community:
•

Etienne Bacrot, 16, became the youngest grandmaster in history at only 14 years old.
•

Florin Felecan, 19, is the highest-rated American chess player under 21.
•

Irina Krush, 15, is the U.S. women's chess champion and youngest member of the U.S. Olympiad team.
•

Elisabeth P ä htz, 14, is ranked eighth in the World Championship of youngsters and is a member of the female German National Chess Team.

MSN.com and the MSN.com Gaming Zone will continue to host the archive site for this event at http://www.zone.com/kasparov/ . The site contains a complete history of moves, all analyst recommendations and Danny King commentaries, photographs of various members of the world team, press releases and exclusive articles on the world of chess. Soon the site will also feature commentary and analysis from Kasparov and more information about the game from Microsoft."(end excerpt)

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/Oct99/KasparovWinsPR.mspx

[ QUOTE ]
If two people working together got the same IQ scores as one person over a battery of tests but scored less individually, would their success rate be equivalent to the single person over a range of intellectual endeavors if they are allowed to work together?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." -- Albert Einstein

[Warren Whitmore]

I have to side against you on this one. Give me Warren Buffett, Ayn Rand, or Newton any day. Although I will admit lots of people with your view for example Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have some great points as well.

Using poker as an example If I had the choice (and I do) to study Mason & yourself or to sort through all the advice of Chris Moneymaker, Ray Michael, and anyone else with any sort of poker knowledge greater than my own I would choose Mason & yourself. I have always believe that majority is often wrong and quite often by a lot.

[Warren Whitmore]

"making the right chess move. You have to be Extremely stupid to not see this." Well ok Stupid yes. Lets look at some examples and see if one course of action seems superior to another.

(1) Someone posts a hand of 7-card stud giving all of the information and askes what they should do on 6 th street. He puts it to a vote. Lots of people respond and it comes back 70% call 30% raise. In the comments you say to Raise. I would make a note to raise in that circumstance. I would do this even it you could demostrate that the population of commenters on this web site is supperior in skill to the average poker player.

(2) As a group mutual fund managers consistently under perform the S & P 500. If all of the mutual fund managers got together and recommended that I buy avon industries and Warren Buffett reccommended that I not. I would not.

(3) 100 people ranging from morons to genius tell me that its bad to give my dog chicken bones. One evolutionary biologist says thats silly you can give all the chicken bones you want to your dog. Dogs have been eatting chicken bones for 10 million years the problem with giving dogs bones is that cooking the meat makes the bones brittle, chicken bones being the worst because bird bones are hollow. It is the cooking part that is bad. If you burn pork chops those bones will kill your dog just as quickly. I would start feeding my dogs chicken bones when the they are raw or when the meat was cooked thorough the boiling process.

(4) The assembly of God church says to the local high school 95% of the population believes in a God & creation of some form. Therefor you must teach creation along side of evolution in your science class. Francis Galton said evolution occurs and demonstrated that fact thourgh experimentation and statistical analysis.

I would go with the Francis Galton.

In each case I will take the individual over the collective wisdom of the group. Most people would take the collective wisdom.

"When it comes to conventional wisdom I have found it to be long on convention and short on wisdom" -Warren Buffett

"You are not wrong or right because people say you are you are right if your data collection methods and logical reasoning are correct." Benjamin Graham 1936 (Warren Buffetts mentor)

"The only thing worse than not knowing things is knowing things wrong." Steinbeck : Of mice and men.

The men are walking along and African plain. They see a lion charging at them from a distance. One of the guys starts putting on his sneakers. You cant outrun a lion. I don't have to outrun the lion I just need to outrun you guys.

[Warren Whitmore]

In Supersystems Doyle Brunsons gets a group of 8 poker players together to write about how to play 8 different forms of poker (selecting the best player known to him for each). Doyle Brunson gets a group of 8 poker players together to collaberate on the 8 different games and write the collectivly. If you could only buy one book which would it be?

[mackthefork]

If you make a committee and give equal weight to everyones opinion, then it is not so far from true, you get compromise which leads ultimately to mediocrity.

Mack

[Dr. StrangeloveX]

I'm surprised Kasparov didn't get crushed by a bunch of computers.

[RJT]

Regardless of the Warren Buffet argument, I have to say I would drop Ayn Rand from your list (especially along side of Newton) but hey that’s me. And we all have our favorites. But, for me, as John Lennon (my preference in the battle of favorite Beatles) said “If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow”. (Obviously Rand is the antithesis of Mao, but I love his sentiments and they apply for me here).

Regarding the Buffet argument and I’ll preface this with the fact that I know little about what he has said in the past. I know a tad bit more about his savvy as a businessman:

I suspect that when Buffet made these comments he was not being literal. I have a hunch that he was being glib when he when he referred to the theorist in business academia and he was probably making a general statement. I would tend to agree with him in his point that he is probably better than most of them relative to the business savvy it takes to be one like himself in contrast to the theorists who work in the “classroom”.

The relevant point though in looking at his statement is that he works at one point in time and is himself one specific example. As opposed to the academicians who thinks in general rules of the business world (like macro economics) and over the long run. (I am sure many college professors, indeed, use him as examples when talking about successful, unique business people and why they might be unique and/or exceptional.) In other words, my guess is they think in (poker) terms of one long, unending business session and he works in the realm of a composite of various shorter (poker) sessions and specific deals (hands).

[Warren Whitmore]

I will buy that with the only change being I prefered Paul McCartney.

[RJT]

I gathered that. Maybe we can agree on this - if you haven't already, get the new Rolling Stones CD - it (they still) rocks.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

me (130) a friend (112) and his brother (115ish) all took an IQ test together and scored 145.

[fluff]

IQ tests are generally made of several different "areas" and it is likely that some people will do better in some areas and others will do better in other areas.

Thus if you combine people who are strong in different areas, then the overall score is likely to improve. OTOH, if you combine people who are roughly equal in all areas, then the score is probably going to by similar.

[Cyrus]

Thanks for the memories - but your example is not relevant.

We cannot be assuming circumstances that mitigate, if not nullfiy the cumulative strength of the many.

In the Kasparov versus the World game, the "world" chose its moves by the "democratic" process of every participant (from grandmasters to patzers) submitting his preferred move. The move with the most votes (submissions) won and was played. Each vote had the same weight. That was clearly wrong. Kasparov was playing against the average strength of internet chess fans, admittedly not a tough task at all, even for lesser players than him.

The proper way for the Kasparov versus The World match would be for each submission to get a weighting according to the participant's chess status. This is how things are done (when they are properly done) in collective efforts.


In the Athenian democracy of Pericles' time, the governor was supposed to be any one of the citizens. Often they even gave the title to someone at random! That's because governing was not supposed to be job for "professionals" but something anyone could do - and if he was not expressing the will of the many, he was ousted immediately.

But when the time came for Athenians to build boats, they sensibly formed committees of expert naval architects and engineers of the day. No "man from the street" was to go in and offer an opinion. The concept of democracy is for politics; the concept of work is for the experienced and the knowledgeable. In this manner, the Athenians were saying that politics (how to govern Athens) was not supposed to be a matter of expertise. You learned how to govern .. by governing.

They were sensible people, those goat herders.

[David Sklansky]

My statement is practically a tautology as long as the consultation is done properly. There is a simple proof. And I need everybody to see that before I deviously reverse course to further my actual agenda.

[RJT]

Piz:

"me (130) a friend (112) and his brother (115ish) all took an IQ test together and scored 145."

DS:

“My statement is practically a tautology as long as the consultation is done properly. There is a simple proof. And I need everybody to see that before I deviously reverse course to further my actual agenda.”



I don’t know David, Piz’s numbers seem to suggest something akin to the quick formula to convert Fahrenheit into Celsius. Take the average of these numbers and subtract 30 (instead of adding 30). You sure about that?

Tell you what, first you tell me who is the better of the two John or Paul. If you erroneously choose Paul, then I’ll give you another chance: If you agree that the Rolling Stones still rock with their latest CD, then I will. (If you have no idea what I am talking about, see my dialogue with Whitmore above.)

Since I know even with the very slight chance that you would get then first one wrong (if you chose Paul), I know you could almost never get two questions wrong in a row. So put me down for seeing “that” what you said. Now you can proceed with deviously reversing your course to further your actual agenda - lol.

[MMMMMM]

It's just a related example...and interesting, or at least I so thought.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I need everybody to see that before I deviously reverse course to further my actual agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

The dog gets it in the end, right ?

[RJT]

RJT:
"Take the average of these numbers and subtract 30 (instead of adding 30)."

I am an idiot. I took the sum of these numbers and divided by 2 instead of their average. Then I subtracted 30. This comes close to the 145, too.

If one takes the average and adds 30 it comes close to the 145.

Maybe we are on to something.

I am joking with all this, of course.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If two people working together got the same IQ scores as one person over a battery of tests but scored less individually, would their success rate be equivalent to the single person over a range of intellectual endeavors if they are allowed to work together?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that range of intellectual endeavors is an IQ test, yes. If it is like an IQ test, quite likely. Otherwise, I think the predictve ability of the IQ test would likely drop.

An IQ test, first and foremost, measures a person's ability to produce the correct result on an IQ test. It measures a few types of problem-solving capability, but it is anything, but the authoritative test of intelligence or ability in intellectual endeavors. There's also the fuzzy measure of success that makes things even messier. Some people are good at tests, but suck at life.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said.
Also IQ tests are mostly worthless once you get above the average other than telling you "You're above average"
Most of them were originally designed to measure deficits, not brilliance. Anyone who spouts off their IQ is most likely a tool that doesn't understand how little it means.

P.S. What do you do for a living benkahuna? I've seen several of your posts now that make me think you're a science-type.

[Benman]

For the combined effort score to be lower than the highest individual score, the dumber participants would somehow have to convince the smartest one to change his answer on a question to something he knows isn't right. The way to make sure this doesn't happen would be to grant the known smartest individual final veto over each final answer. That way he could use the combined efforts on questions he might be inclined to make a mistake on, but would never allow what was obviously correct to him be overruled.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
For the combined effort score to be lower than the highest individual score, the dumber participants would somehow have to convince the smartest one to change his answer on a question to something he knows isn't right. The way to make sure this doesn't happen would be to grant the known smartest individual final veto over each final answer. That way he could use the combined efforts on questions he might be inclined to make a mistake on, but would never allow what was obviously correct to him be overruled.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats exactly how it was done actually lol.