Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: General Battuta on October 28, 2010, 11:18:26 am
-
alternate title: lol women are brain lubricant
Adding women to a group of smart people boosts the collective intelligence of the group way out of proportion to the intelligence of the women. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100930143339.htm)
I'm skeptical of biological differences underlying this (no evopsych ****) but given the relentless training women get in social intelligence, it makes a degree of sense.
iamzack you are now on all HLP project teams
also inb4 this is politically correct garbage: men with the same socint scores would probably have the same effect.
-
hypothesis: all the men try to compete to show they are the smartest resulting in better overall performance.
-
hypothesis: all the men try to compete to show they are the smartest resulting in better overall performance.
Nope, the paper contraindicates that mechanism pretty firmly. Check it out, it's a good read.
-
I bet that gender dynamics also play a compounding role in addition to social intelligence scores. Glad to see that's on the researcher's agendas to evaluate further.
-
hypothesis: all the men try to compete to show they are the smartest resulting in better overall performance.
Nope, the paper contraindicates that mechanism pretty firmly. Check it out, it's a good read.
which part specificiallly? because reading it, they haven't designed the study to focus on gender dynamics, so i reckon bob's hypothesis may be part of it. but i think its more of a 'let's be serious here' rather than trying to impress.
-
hypothesis: all the men try to compete to show they are the smartest resulting in better overall performance.
Nope, the paper contraindicates that mechanism pretty firmly. Check it out, it's a good read.
which part specificiallly? because reading it, they haven't designed the study to focus on gender dynamics, so i reckon bob's hypothesis may be part of it. but i think its more of a 'let's be serious here' rather than trying to impress.
No, Bob's hypothesis suggests increased competition, whereas the paper detects no effect of individual performance on group performance (a blow to the hypothesis) and confirms that the gender of the group is irrelevant, it's social sensitivity that matters, so a group of high-sensitivity males would outperform a group of low-SS women, which falsifies the hypothesis pretty well. Women cannot force men to 'be more serious' if there are no women present yet the SS impact is still present.
SS is just confounded with gender because it tends to be higher in women.
-
iamzack you are now on all HLP project teams
where mah buttons
-
iamzack you are now on all HLP project teams
where mah buttons
How's this? :p (http://staff.hard-light.net/sandwich/images/badge-iamzack.png)
-
No, Bob's hypothesis suggests increased competition, whereas the paper detects no effect of individual performance on group performance (a blow to the hypothesis) and confirms that the gender of the group is irrelevant, it's social sensitivity that matters, so a group of high-sensitivity males would outperform a group of low-SS women, which falsifies the hypothesis pretty well. Women cannot force men to 'be more serious' if there are no women present yet the SS impact is still present.
SS is just confounded with gender because it tends to be higher in women.
what would happen if a similar study were performed in an online environment? what if you had 5 groups, two consisting of all males, two consisting of all females, one consisting of mixed male/female population, one of each of the homogeneous groups half the participants would be instructed to act as members of the opposite sex (might help (in terms of portraying genuine sexual attraction) if they were gay, maybe there should be two more groups where this variable is tested).
[edit]oh, hey it's the delicatessen admin! I haven't seen you around lately.[/edit]
-
No, Bob's hypothesis suggests increased competition, whereas the paper detects no effect of individual performance on group performance (a blow to the hypothesis) and confirms that the gender of the group is irrelevant, it's social sensitivity that matters, so a group of high-sensitivity males would outperform a group of low-SS women, which falsifies the hypothesis pretty well. Women cannot force men to 'be more serious' if there are no women present yet the SS impact is still present.
SS is just confounded with gender because it tends to be higher in women.
what would happen if a similar study were performed in an online environment? what if you had 5 groups, two consisting of all males, two consisting of all females, one consisting of mixed male/female population, one of each of the homogeneous groups half the participants would be instructed to act as members of the opposite sex (might help (in terms of portraying genuine sexual attraction) if they were gay, maybe there should be two more groups where this variable is tested).
This would have an effect if gender dynamics were important in group performance (they may be), but it's separate from this study, which simply demonstrates that social intelligence of group members is significant in determining group performance, moreso than individual intelligence. (In fact, your design is highly confounded by this factor.)
You couldn't tell people to pretend to be more socially intelligent.
Gender is only relevant in this study inasmuch as it is confounded with social intelligence. Your design seems to be focused on the impact of gender structure on the individual performance of each group member, but this study suggests that is less of a factor than a naive speculator would probably think.
-
[edit]oh, hey it's the delicatessen admin! I haven't seen you around lately.[/edit]
I respond to the Bat signal now and then... :p Congrats on 10,000 posts! ;)
-
I've got a lot more than that, but gendisc doesn't count towards the count, though I wonder what my actual count is.
-
You couldn't tell people to pretend to be more socially intelligent.
exactly.
and I'm trying to determine how much if any the gender dynamics plays, so we can know how much of what was seen in the study is attributable to that.
-
You couldn't tell people to pretend to be more socially intelligent.
exactly.
and I'm trying to determine how much if any the gender dynamics plays, so we can know how much of what was seen in the study is attributable to that.
Yeah but you can just determine that by running an ANOVA or regression on gender and socint. Isolate the gender variable. Looks like they did that and found no impact of gender, it was just socint.
-
I can guarantee that I'd be the individual in a collaborative group bringing the group social intelligence down several notches. :p
-
Baked beans and bananas. ;7
-
So nobody likes the sheer genius of that badge I came up with, huh? It's got EVERYTHING! Infinity, the female gender symbol, and "IQ++" IN THE FREESPACE FONT (!!!!!) - all integrated into a 20x20 pixel image!
...did I mention genius?
-
put it on her
and all HLP badges!
-
So nobody likes the sheer genius of that badge I came up with, huh? It's got EVERYTHING! Infinity, the female gender symbol, and "IQ++" IN THE FREESPACE FONT (!!!!!) - all integrated into a 20x20 pixel image!
...did I mention genius?
i like iiiiiiiiiiiit
-
from what i remember from psych 101, is that women's brains seem to have a second language center where men keep their reasoning and logic centers. so women have a dual core processor as far as social interaction goes. of course this pushes their logic and analytical abilities to some small corner of the brain, though that barely accounts for zack's calculus scores. ive never actually had any formal math education beyond algebra I and some electronics oriented math classes. but while writing some algorithm for nukesim i accidentally used integrals, and didnt realize it until i looked up calculus in wikipedia. still i find even the most socially inept females run circles around me as far as social interaction goes. if it wasnt for my grasp on technological concepts id be a total idiot.
-
from what i remember from psych 101, is that women's brains seem to have a second language center where men keep their reasoning and logic centers. so women have a dual core processor as far as social interaction goes. of course this pushes their logic and analytical abilities to some small corner of the brain, though that barely accounts for zack's calculus scores. ive never actually had any formal math education beyond algebra I and some electronics oriented math classes. but while writing some algorithm for nukesim i accidentally used integrals, and didnt realize it until i looked up calculus in wikipedia. still i find even the most socially inept females run circles around me as far as social interaction goes. if it wasnt for my grasp on technological concepts id be a total idiot.
Your psych 101 sucked. This is just an urban legend. It's bizarrely difficult to find any neurological differences between the male and female brains. In fact because brain volume correlates with intelligence, women should be less intelligent on average, but different ratios of processing to structural matter in the genders leave them exactly on par.
Nature is bizarrely egalitarian in this respect.
-
It's all in the convolutions and the employment thereof, Sir.
:nod:
-
Your psych 101 sucked.
i wouldnt doubt that every educational institution i have ever had the displeasure to attend has failed me. this is america after all.
-
Excuse me for being a massive n00b in this sphere, but I'm curious as to how you guys measure social sensitivity? Also, would I be right in drawing from the article that a high SS score would be reflective of someone who would be a better communicator/leader/whatever than someone with a lower SS score?
-
Your psych 101 sucked.
Your mom's a router.
-
In fact because brain volume correlates with intelligence
Shouldn't that be brain-to-body weight ratio correlates with intelligence?
Unless you want to propose blue whales have discovered nuclear fusion and are just ****ing around for ****s and giggles. :P
-
In fact because brain volume correlates with intelligence
Shouldn't that be brain-to-body weight ratio correlates with intelligence?
Unless you want to propose blue whales have discovered nuclear fusion and are just ****ing around for ****s and giggles. :P
Yeah, I probably should've specified 'in humans'. :nervous: But at least in good old homo sap it's not a ratio, it's just straight-up brain size.
-
i should point out that i have an exceptionally large head :D
Your psych 101 sucked.
Your mom's a router.
lets hope not, she would forever be loosing packets. she would even cause the internet to explode.
-
So nobody likes the sheer genius of that badge I came up with, huh? It's got EVERYTHING! Infinity, the female gender symbol, and "IQ++" IN THE FREESPACE FONT (!!!!!) - all integrated into a 20x20 pixel image!
...did I mention genius?
Genius sir! I wuv it. But I should mention that all other project badges are 25x25... :nervous:
put it on her
and all HLP badges!
Very well, I have added iamzack to all projects for which you have leadership authority.
-
Am I the only one getting an "image not found" for the "iamzack" badge? :lol:
-
Am I the only one getting an "image not found" for the "iamzack" badge? :lol:
I see a BP badge. :yes:
Unless you meant the IQ++ one. I can see that one too.
-
didnt bp kill all the fish in mexico or something?
-
No, but that's still on the table as an option.
-
I used to have some female bosses who would likely score very low on the social sensitivity range. Often it was shocking. So I imagine there's quite a bit of generalization going on here right?
-
I used to have some female bosses who would likely score very low on the social sensitivity range. Often it was shocking. So I imagine there's quite a bit of generalization going on here right?
Only the generalizations made clear in the math. Women on average have higher SS. SS seems to predict group performance in the paradigms used in this study. That's all.
-
Well you have environments that perhaps don't favour people with higher SS's. Like Icefire, the place I used to work at had 9/10 managers female (including the store manager), but lacking social sensitivity.
However the fast-food environment and the store manager employed assistant managers who favoured nagging and yelling at the employees as some kind of enforcement of 'discipline' at work which would seem to increase efficiency but does not always do so (whether the SM thought so or not). People with higher SS's (there was one in particular at work) either had to provide support to other team members privately, which was usually out the back where everyone smoked, or risk bearing the brunt of manager_r4g3 for not working to the pace the manager liked.
I'd envisage people with higher SS levels to be far more helpful during things like planning exercises where there isn't overwhelming pressure to be fast but rather, enough time for the person with higher SS levels to direct and lead the group. And where there's less of a hierarchy/autocratic leader who discourages input.
-
Well you have environments that perhaps don't favour people with higher SS's. Like Icefire, the place I used to work at had 9/10 managers female (including the store manager), but lacking social sensitivity.
Women have higher social sensitivity on average. This is a trait of the group, not of the individual; a distribution will always exist.
People with higher SS's (there was one in particular at work)
I'm uncomfortable with just eyeballing this trait. It feels like something that could easily get confounded by questions like 'do they like me?'
I'd envisage people with higher SS levels to be far more helpful during things like planning exercises where there isn't overwhelming pressure to be fast but rather, enough time for the person with higher SS levels to direct and lead the group. And where there's less of a hierarchy/autocratic leader who discourages input.
Misconstrual of the results. I don't believe they suggest any kind of leadership/direction role, do they?
-
Yeah, eyeballing the trait is probably inaccurate, but if "Social sensitivity has to do with how well group members perceive each other's emotions," is correct, there are a couple of instances I can recall at work (if I can call it that...hard labour would be more correct :P) where I observed this particular bloke was particularly good at reading emotions, among other things. Of course I might've completely misunderstood what that sentence meant, but eh.
Misconstrual of the results. I don't believe they suggest any kind of leadership/direction role, do they?
Hmm, I could've sworn I read somewhere in that article something between the turntaking in groups and the SS...my bad. My assumption was that people with higher SS would've practiced and perhaps gently enforced more equal turn taking between group members, to enhance collective intelligence or whatever the article was on about. So SS and equal conversational turn-taking are independent traits that contribute to collective intelligence?
-
I don't know.
-
And I came in here ready to say ' More like rooters! :lol: '
Anyway, I guess this is kinda cool, but nowhere near so as being some witty sexual pun.
-
... can I have a badge?
-
Likewise? My left side feels empty and uncolorful.
-
hell no *****es, you gotta get your junk certified
-
what if I made a goldfish badge?
-
what if I made a goldfish badge?
As if you'd be able to finish it. :P
-
lulz
-
we should have a "completely useless" badge for us leechers who contribute nothing to the community other than to the download count :P
-
we should have a "completely useless" badge for us leechers who contribute nothing to the community other than to the download count :P
*highfive*
-
we should have a "completely useless" badge for us leechers who contribute nothing to the community other than to the download count :P
*highfive*
YEAH!!!
<- And what the **** is this?!?
-
<- And what the **** is this?!?
You now have a badge.
-
****ing pwnt
-
Why a shovel?
-
<- And what the **** is this?!?
You now have a badge.
I want a badger!
-
Okay, this is going down a dark path.
-
I see a lock.