danq_
Nah, Pauls article didn't talk about results. What was Jessica's hit rate at being right?
Women and men have different degrees of this X-ray vision and it's hard to actually rank someones ability in this automatically.
Often a lot of women are just given these roles by assumption. What did Jessica do to qualify her for this position other then being Pauls romantic partner?
I mean you're getting into sort of sexist territory here where it's perfectly fine to say women are more socially intelligent then men but it's not okay to say men have better general intelligence. Let's just ignore this etiquette for now because it distracts from the facts.
Neither gender has enough ability to make a social judgement call based off of interviews, there simply isn't enough information. You need to spend a lot of time with someone to really "GET" who they are. Any call made during an interview is largely a shot in the dark. Even if women were slightly superior to men at judging these things an interview simply isn't enough to make valid call for anyone but a mind reader.
Women though are very very judgemental to a degree greater than men. They have a higher degree of paranoia as well and they typically end up being a little more alarmist then they need to be. Things like walking home alone in the dark and other activities with low probability of danger they just are more reactive to it for various reasons. I would actually have a slight bias against what women think due to this. During these interviews there's a tendency for women to end up raising red flags where no red flags exist.
Either way, Jessica occupies the same zone as, Obamas wife, or Bill Gates's wife. That kind of thing. There's no real raw qualification here and the automatic assignment of her as the "social" guide for the team is likely only done because she's a woman or because she's non-technical and that's the only role she could fill because she's only their by virtue of being Pauls' partner.
Even without the concept of an IQ test the fact that if you were given two people who both answered 50 questions correctly, one person took a full day to complete the questions while another person answered them in all in 2 minutes. Clearly our conceptual intuition of intelligence says the Faster person by literal definition of "intelligence" is more intelligent.
Like what is the experiment in this article measuring here? If it's comparing people who got the exact same test scores then the experimenter can't identify differing levels of intelligence because everyone got everything right. How can they say the faster person is stupider then the slower person if the scores are the same?
The only way to truly compare is to find people who got the answers wrong, but in this case your measuring the speed of arrival at a wrong answer which is in itself a pointless measurement.
Obviously wrong answers are faster to come up with and obviously a person with more wrong answers is going to be faster and stupider then the person with right answers.
Correctness is the primary measure, and if two parties are correct then speed differentiates their level of intelligence. This is the only measure that has been quantified and scientifically correlated with many other attributes of human existence like success and happiness. This measure is is called IQ.
If both people get an answer correct, then literally, by definition, the stupider person will be the person who takes longer to arrive at the correct answer. Remember: IQ tests are timed.
This study is sort of a play on the very definition of what it means to be stupid. Again, IQ tests are timed for a reason.
The real title of this is should be:
Stupid people take less time to arrive at a wrong answer then smart people take to arrive at the correct answer.
This is sort of a useless study, because yeah, I can answer the hardest questions in the entire universe with the wrong answer almost instantaneously. Of course wrong answers will be faster.
The fact that most of you aren't noticing this says something about your intelligence. Maybe you guys are just taking too long to notice this, so in that case according to this study you're all smarter than a dumb dumb like me.