Ants are quite simple and stupid, but their intelligence and complexity grows with the number of interactions between them. The more ant interaction there is, the more sophisticated behavior is resulted. It’s similar to flocking behavior where birds follow very simple rules but complex behavior emerges. But when it comes to humans, the opposite happens. More interactions equals dumber behavior. Understanding the difference between humans and animals in group psychology enables us to be intelligent.
When we come together and interact as a group seeking consensus, we lose sophistication and intelligence. Ants get smarter while we get dumber. It is because humans are of a different level of species than animals. Humans possess individuality and conscious awareness. Animals do not have that. Animals are meant to follow a certain set pattern they have been programmed with. Humans are meant to express individuality of thinking and to evolve mentally. But individuality is distorted in group situations.
The wisdom of groups comes not from the consensus decision of the group, but from the aggregation of the ideas/thoughts/decisions of each individual in the group. The trouble with groups is that it tends to dampen individual thought and expression. Everyone is blended into a group consciousness where individual genius is diminished by the stupidity of others because of signal mixing. Paradoxically, the best way for a group to be smart is for each person in it to think and act as independently as possible.
At its simplest form, it means that if you take a bunch of people and ask them individually to answer a question, the average of each of those individual answers will likely be better than if the group works together to come up with a single answer. When people are allowed to speak from their individual point of view, they are able to give their true thoughts and honest insights. They’re not affected by social approval need or suppressed by opposing consciousness of other people in the group. Intelligence is free.
An intelligent group, especially when confronted with problems involving perception, does not ask its members to modify their positions in order to let the group reach a decision everyone can be happy with. Instead, it figures out how to use systems to aggregate and produce collective judgments that represent not what any one person in the group thinks but rather, what they all think. We are not looking for what the average person thinks. We are looking for the entire range of individual thinking that exists.
The overemphasis on happy productive teamwork has done more harm than good to innovation. There can be a good balance, but the problem is usually too far in the favor of team over the individual. Diversity and dissent which are usually considered bad characteristics in a team, under the right circumstances can lead to something much greater than what the team can do when everyone must agree. Therefore it goes against the common notion that disagreements and conflict are bad in group discussions.
There is a wide disparity between what those at the top say they want brave, bold, innovative) and what their own middle management seems to prefer (yes-men, worker bees, team players). You won’t actually hear any manager admit it, but you see it over and over again in their choices.
- When a company needs to layoff people the less-than-team-player folks tend to be the first to go. Yet they are the ones that provide the true brains when it becomes painfully clear that business as usual is failing horribly.
It is true that teams where everyone is completely in sync with little disagreement are more productive. But the question is: “Productive at what?” Usually the answer is they are productive at rubbish. Team think usually promotes doing things exactly the way they’ve always done them. This is not exactly a recipe for being totally super amazing. Team thinking leads to incremental improvements, and prevents revolutionary ideas. To have quantum growth, the normal order of things may have to be shaken.
A genius answer just don’t usually come from teams working together to reach a solution. Genius answers come from the wild-ass idea one guy had in the shower. That doesn’t mean he can’t be part of a team, but the more unusual an idea is, the more resistance it will get from a group, and that’s often enough to suck the life out of an idea. Or it goes from being a genius answer to one that’s merely a little cleverer than the usual, which is nothing great. The group’s job is not truly creation but integration.
It’s not teams that are the problem, it’s the over insistence on teamwork. The most truly remarkable ideas did not come from teamwork. The most truly brave decisions were not made through teamwork. The team’s role should be to act as a supportive environment for a collection of individuals. They are people with their own unique voice, ideas, thoughts and perspectives. A team should be there to encourage one another to pursue their wild ass ideas, not get locked to keep everything cheery and pleasant.
The statement “There’s no ‘I’ in Team” is terribly depressing. Whoever made that statement may seem very clever but is actually an idiot, and so is everyone who gets fooled by it. You have value in and out of a team. Do not lose your individuality in order to be a team player. Any team who doesn’t value your individuality isn’t a team you should be part of.
- A team can change the world, but it’s still a team of individuals supporting each other rightly. There is an ‘I’ in ‘Integration’ which is complete intelligence.
Owner and Founder At The Goddess Bibles A Memoir By Laura Zukerman
Becoming Your Inner Goddess
Goddess as a Team ; supporting individual, Oneness! 🙏💕❤️