Dorai. (01)
For what it's worth ... (02)
I believe it is (was) Stephen Gould who was prominent in debunking the
notion of simplistic measures of human intelligence ("The Mismeasure of
Man") and painted the social consequences. (03)
I have here Stephen Ceci's book "On Intelligence: A Bioecological
Treatise on INtellectual Development" in which he dismantles the notion
that intelligence can be measured by a single criterion, the g-factor,
which is a descendant of the intelligence quotient. (04)
Howard Gardner, who declares himself comfortable with Ceci's thinking,
wrote extensively about multiple intelligences. (05)
A reflection on the variations in the functioning of various parts of
the brain ought make it intuitively evident that there can hardly be a
single measure if intelligence. Neither can a consideration of the
awesome performances of various kinds of idiots savants - ref. e.g.
Fleabyte: http://www.fleabyte.org/eic-14.html#2AS (06)
Doug's use of the term "collective IQ" does not refer to any measure of
intelligence. It is used in the sense of "two (three, four ...) heads
are better than one." I believe it is in his 1962 proposal "Augmenting
Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework" that he writes about people of
different backgrounds or talents working together so as to help optimize
the meshing of those talents in organizations. So indeed, the term
"collectice IQ" is a nice way of describing the effectiveness of a
group. But you will be hard put to quantify this - just consider what
single measure would optimize an egineering organization as well as a
symphony orchestra? As well as directing a society's stance with regard
to Iraq? (07)
Collective intelligence may be enhances by synenergy in a group, but an
individual aha! would be the outcome of conflict. (08)
I am particularly taken by your question, does a common cause help?
There is an implication here of various talents blending in an effort to
reach a common goal. A good thing, but there exist that obstacle of
individual blinkers brought about by individual experiences reinforced
by the groups in which individual experiences were gathered.
Exemplifying: Lawyers may well harbor a great deal of disdain for how
others perceive society and expect it to work. The hard-nosed among us
have disdain for the woolly-headed idealists (forgetting that ideals
generate currents of social thought). Already in our schools we find a
split between the arts and the sciences (C.B. Snow's "two solitudes"). (09)
Clearly, in a world where we need to specialize more and more, the need
for meshing those specialties to create a wholesome societal fabric
become increasingly paramount. Unfortunately, we fail to recognize that
sufficiently. (010)
Henry (011)
P.S. And thus it is that Fleabyte has become a lost cause. (012)
On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 19:11, Dorai Thodla wrote:
> I need to thank Chris for giving me an opening to ask this question.
>
> 1. We measure people's intelligence by a metric called IQ (which is a
> level of verbal and logical intelligence). Not a great measure, but it
> is out there.
>
> 2. Then I heard the term Emotional Quotient, which is a measure of
> something else but may have IQ as a component.
>
> 3. I heard from several sources about Multiple Intelligence (Richard
> Gardner) but not heard anyone talk about MIQ
>
> As I mentioned in a previous message, I heard the term Collective IQ and
> thought "Aha, this is a nice way to describe the effectiveness of a
> group". I thought some more and realized that I do not really know what
> goes to make Collective IQ. Here are some parameters I can think of that
> may make up CIQ but I am sure that there are a lot more:
>
> - The IQ of the individual members of the group
> - The synergy level between the group (is there a metric for this?)
> - Commitment of each member
> - Curiosity to look at problems from multiple angles
> - Complementary nature ( I am not sure how to word it) of the team
> members which minimize the fiction
>
> What others are there?
> - Does having a common cause help?
> - The urge to solve large, complex problems ( or even simple ones)?
> - Participatory nature of the individual members of the group (actively
> dialog about the knowledge being shared, task being performed etc.)?
>
> .....
>
> -- Dorai
>
>
> ________________
>
> Dorai Thodla
> www.imorph.com
> www.infominder.com
>
>
> (013)
--
This message is archived at: (014)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=1047692694.3967.46.camel@localhost.localdomain (015)
|