When Two Heads Aren't Better Than One


In case you were wondering whether or not there is, in fact, a word for everything, allow me to tell you that polycephany, the condition of having multiple heads, is most common in snakes and tortoises. Humans, of course, tend towards a more singular arrangement.

The foundational concept behind the business meeting is that bringing together more minds will ensure better results, that the ideas generated will be lit by the total of all intelligence in the room. In the abstract, it sounds reasonable, but in our own lives, we have reason to doubt.

Consider how many people used to sneer at the heliocentric model of the solar system, or germ theory, or universal suffrage. Consider the Titanic. Consider the continued inexplicable success of Two and a Half Men. Whether we're talking scientific communities of yore or the modern viewing public, large groups of people can have a pretty mixed track record.

So do the benefits of collaboration hold up to public scrutiny?

Julia A. Minson and Jennifer S. Mueller of the Wharton School at University of Pennsylvania put it to the test. Their findings were reported in a Psychological Science article called "The Cost of Collaboration." It turns out that this mental teamwork is indeed useful, but Minson and Mueller had one important caution. When two or more people problem-solve together, they tend to get overconfident.

When we reach universal agreement, we are far more likely to believe we've hit the right answer, to vigorously defend that position, and to refuse to re-evaluate.

And herein lies the rub: during a collaborative session, if the team encounters outside information that doesn't line up with the feel of the room, that information is frequently dismissed. Once that momentum has built, minds close.

What's interesting is that human emotion, that warm feeling of safety in numbers, can trump the sum of those analytical brains.

The result? Group activity and discussion are likely to generate more ideas, but that titular cost is that those same people are more likely to find themselves in an echo chamber, and less likely to seek out—or even listen—to dissenting thoughts.

It's enough to make you think twice about the phrase "a committee of one."


Check out Robb’s new book and more 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Robert Frost Quandary, or How Irrational Thinking Might Save Your Life

Image
You stumble out of the wilderness, having had no contact with humans for at least ten days. You’re weak from hunger and fatigue and you find yourself at a crossroads, power lines stretching out along each of the separate roadways. It’s decision time. You think about Robert Frost’s poem, and wonder if his advice to take the road less traveled might not just lead to your demise. What do you do, or more importantly, which brain system should you use to make this crucial decision? Daniel Kahneman, famed psychologist, winner of the Nobel prize for prospect theory and author of Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow might be the one guy to call, assuming your existential crossroads gets cellphone reception. Kahneman explains that we have two systems for making decisions. He refers to them simply as System 1 and System 2. System 1 is reflexive, automatic, and impulsive. It takes a constant reading of your surroundings and generates short-term predictions, all operating on a level beneath yo
Read more

Who Are You: Does Personality Change as We Age?

Image
Are you the same “you” that you were twenty years ago? Thirty? Forty? What about fifty years ago? While science still struggles to quantify, measure, and categorize personality, some have a different question: how stable is personality in the first place? Do the high school version of yourself and the retiree version of yourself still have some common immutable core? It depends how you look at it , says a paper by lead author Rodica Damian of University of Houston and her co-authors Marion Spengler of the University of Tuebingen in Germany, Brent W. Roberts of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and UH grad student Andreea Sutu. The paper in question goes by the catchy title “Sixteen going on sixty-six: A longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years.” Damian and her colleagues compared the results for 1,795 U.S. adults who had taken a personality test as teenagers and then again, five decades years later. The team found that yes, there is a
Read more

The Best Painkiller Isn't What You Think It Is

Image
When we say that listening to the right song makes us feel better, usually we mean it in terms of emotions. However, a new study from the University of Utah Health suggests that combining certain painkillers with certain music boosts the pain-fighting effect of the medication a measurable amount. This recent bit of research was conducted specifically on models recreating two types of pain: inflammatory and post-surgical. (Nerve pain, or neuropathic pain, was not addressed.) Low doses of four medications were explored: ibuprofen, cannabidiol, levetiracetam, and NAX 5055. As for music, the researchers went with one artist only, while the control groups were given one of the four drugs and subjected to white noise. What music would you choose for optimal painkilling effect? The experimenters went with Mozart. (Interestingly, the phrase “Mozart therapy” already exists, referring to the beneficial effect ol’ Amadeus can have on patients with epilepsy. For instance, a 2018 st
Read more