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".

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

"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.