Need more proof Dr. Al was right in Part I?

[ZeeBee]

Look, it's your choice.

You can nit-pick your way through the simple examples I gave and then question whether my interpretation of the research I cite is suspect (without bothering to read it yourself) and then revert back to your own opinions (which, of course, aren't based on any research) - or you can choose to perhaps investigate the research and maybe have some of your assumptions challenged.

Have you ever heard of the "Intelligence Trap"? I suggest you look it up.

I suggest we all move on - I have no more extra knowledge or evidence to contribute, and noone else seems to want to do anything other than argue (or ignore) the existing data without bringing anything new in to play.

I'm not sure what the exact cooperative/competitive balance should be, nor exactly in which cases we need to beed up competition at the expense of cooperation or vice versa (or even when both goals can be achieved). But I do know it's nowhere near as simple (and as one-sided towards competition) as many are assuming (and seem unwilling to consider otherwise).

ZB

[InfernoLL]

I don't wish to extend this argument past necessity, so it might be better to not respond at all, but I want to comment on a few things. First of all, complaining about "nit-pick"ing here is unfounded. You used a few terrible examples and shouldn't have written them in the first place if you can't accept someone pointing them out as terrible. They were used to support your argument and with out them your argument has less support.

As for the "intelligence trap", this little to do with the argument. Teachers are (or should be) smarter than their students (in primary and secondary education). If the smartest student comes up with the wrong or sub-optimal solution, the teacher tells them that. Whether cooperating or acting alone, that student would come up with that same solution if he really is that intelligent. And whether it's his teacher or classmate which tries to point out something wrong with his work, he made the mistake and is being corrected. In fact, the "intelligence trap" favors an individualistic learning environment, because the student is more likely to accept criticism from the teacher than from a coworking peer.

You are right that I have not read this research you are referring to, but you should consider the possibility that you are giving it too much weight, assuming that you are accurately representing its conclusions. Remember the self esteem movement of not too many years ago? Though it has now been almost entirely debunked, I'm sure it had academic advocates and their various studies to back it up. Trying to reach strong conclusions in the social sciences about any but the most trivial matters is very difficult, and it's often not until well after something is "proven" by research that it is shown to be completely groundless.

[Al Schoonmaker]

A few days ago I said, "Thank you," and I'd like to repeat my thanks.

We've had four threads with about 90 posts on this article and over 4,000 people read them.

I am delighted to see people thinking about poker and competition, and I hope more people comment. I especially appreciate the ones who say I'm wrong and make good arguments.

Spirited disagreements benefit all of us.

Keep those comments coming.

Regards,

Al

[The Dude]

Thank you for being here, Al. We appreciate your time and your thoughts.

[ZeeBee]

You misunderstand the Intelligence Trap. It is nothing to do with the cooperation vs competition argument - it is about how this debate is being carried on. It describes how smart people fail to learn because they use their intelligence and skills to knock down half-formed or half-expressed arguments rather than suspending judgement for a while, investigating the possibilities of the argument, and then forming a judgement based on a wider set of facts. Both Edward de Bono and Chris Argyris have written well on this subject.

You are right that I may be overestimating the evidence I point out - as I keep stating, my position is tentative and I am not fully certain of it. But what I am putting forward is a counterpoint to those who use limited or no evidence (other than a small amount of anecdotal evidence) and "common sense" to form their opinion.

This was my original point about Al's article - there was no real evidence presented to support it. I attempted to present the evidence I know about - which happens to disagree with Dr Al's conclusions. What has happened since is that posters have been happier to pick holes in evidence which challenges their position (it's always possible to pick holes in any evidence - especially in the social sciences as you say) rather than find evidence to support their position or even question the lack of it.

To a large degree I don't care which position is correct, I am just hugely frustrated that no one is producing anything other than anecdotal evidence to support the "pro-competition" side - yet are perfectly prepared to keep arguing the point. If someone can produce some strong, research based evidence then great - it will add to the knowledge base and enliven the debate. Otherwise the debate seems to be at the same level as my kids in the playground arguing whether a Shark would beat a Tiger in a fight.

ZB

PS The Shark would win, of course.

[InfernoLL]

No additional argument, but a word about style.

"You misunderstand the Intelligence Trap. It is nothing to do with the cooperation vs competition argument - it is about how this debate is being carried on."

The reason I couldn't tell what you were getting at by citing the Intelligence Trap is that you didn't say anything about it other than something like "look up the intelligence trap". It would have been better to actually state how this principle relates to the srgument, rather than allowing me to make the easy mistake and having to correct me in the next post. Part of posting is actually allowing readers to know what you are trying to say. I actually found this very annoying while trying to respond to your post.

[ZeeBee]

Fair enough. But you could have done what I said and looked it up, rather than assuming you knew what it meant.

ZB

[InfernoLL]

Well, I did actually look it up. My complaint was that you didn't specify how you meant it to apply to the argument, as it is not clear from your post. I chose to interpret it in the most straight forward manner.

Intelligence Trap

"Another problem that the intellectually gifted can often have is a tiny, but very significant problem known as "the intelligence trap". This is caused because the gifted individual will see a solution to the problem so quickly that they will not even stop and think that their solution was not the best one, and not falling into this trap takes deliberate training to make sure that it is avoided."

If this isn't what you meant then I apologize for not doing extensive research for the sake of a casual internet forum.

[ZeeBee]

That's close, but not quite exactly what I meant. This quote from de Bono best sums it up :
[ QUOTE ]
A highly intelligent person will take a point of view and then use intelligence to defend it ... Many excellent minds are trapped in poor ideas because they can defend them well.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point was more related to the ability of the excellent mind to defend and argue a point (rather than just not see an alternative). Apologies if the reference wasn't clear. Although to be quite honest it was thrown out more as a frustrated semi-insult than with an expectation anyone would look it up.

ZB

[cpk]

If the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts, then it would seem that raising the effectiveness of society's weakest members would have a much larger overall impact than raising up those already at the top. Why? Because bumping 95% of the population up by a little does a lot more than bumping the top 5% up by a lot.

Really, we need both. We need to help those who cannot succeed on their own become successful, and we need to challenge and reward those with lots of talents. America had a great scheme for doing this for a great many years--comprehensive public education, ample access to college education, and sharply progressive taxation. Gradually, these institutions have been undermined, and we will all pay the price in the long run.

While we wouldn't have the telephone without Alexander Graham Bell, it wouldn't have become an integral part of our lives without the hundreds of thousands of people over the years that made universal phone service a reality, and the millions of customers who bought the service and used the product. Recall also that Bell never owned a phone himself!

We're all in this together. We need to keep things interesting for the talented, but we also need to work hard to keep everyone engaged in the system. Overemphasis on competition undermines the latter.