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.