Text 2
Psychologists have known for a century that individuals vary in their cognitive ability. But are some groups, like some people, reliably smarter than others? In order to answer that question. we grouped 697 volunteer participants into teams of two to five members. Each team worked together to complete a series of short tasks, which were selected to represent the varied kinds of problems that groups are called upon to solve in the real world. One task involved logical analysis, another brain- storming; others emphasized coordination, planning and moral reasoning.
Individual intelligence, as psychologists measure it, is defined by its generality: People with good vocabularies, for instance, also tend to have good math skills, even though we often think of those abilities as distinct. The results of our studies showed that this same kind of general intelli- gence also exists for teams. On average, the groups that did well on one task did well on the others, too. In other words, some teams were simply smarter than others.
We found the smartest teams were distinguished by three characteristics. First, their members contributed more equally to the team’s discussions, rather than letting one or two people dominate the group. Second, their members scored higher on a test called Reading the Mind in the Eyes, which measures how well people can read complex emotional states from images of faces with only the eyes visible. Finally, teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. This last ef- fect, however, was partly explained by the fact that women, on average, were better at “mindread- ing” than men.
In a new study, we replicated these earlier findings. We randomly assigned each of 68 teams to complete our collective intelligence test in one of two conditions. Half of the teams worked face to face. The other half worked online, with no ability to see any of their teammates. We wanted to see whether groups that worked online would still demonstrate collective intelligence, and whether so- cial ability would matter as much when people communicated purely by typing messages into a browser.
And they did. Online and off, some teams consistently worked smarter than others. More sur- prisingly, the most important ingredients for a smart team remained constant regardless of its mode of interaction: members who communicated a lot, participated equally and possessed good emo- tion-reading skills.
26. It can be inferred from the first paragraph that ________.
[A] some groups are really smarter than others
[B] the 697 volunteer participants need to complete a series of short tasks together
[C] the selected short tasks must have practical significance
[D] logical analysis and brainstorming are important in each task
27. According to psychologists, individual intelligence ________.
[A] is characterized by generality
[B] is related to math skills
[C] is not related to teams
[D] is key to smarter teams
28. According to the author, the characteristics of smarter teams include all the following EX- CEPT ________.
[A] the members have relatively equal contribution to the team’s discussions
[B] the members have a higher IQ
[C] the members have a stronger ability of reading complex facial expressions
[D] there are more female members than other teams
29. In a new study, the other half of people work online because ________.
[A] it’s necessary to ensure the accuracy of the experiment
[B] online collaboration is becoming more and more important
[C] the experimenters want to see whether collective intelligence will be showed
[D] the experimenters want to prove social ability is vital to every team
30. The best title for the passage may be ________.
[A] How to Develop a Smarter Team
[B] Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others
[C] The Characteristics of Smarter Team
[D] What Factors can Affect a Team
上一页 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ... 下一页 >>
（责任编辑：admin）