The Too-Much-Talent Effect(pss.sagepub.com)
pss.sagepub.com
The Too-Much-Talent Effect
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/8/1581
2 comments
I have not read the full article (pay wall), but I have definitely experienced this in professional settings. I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this, especially with startup's desire to build "killer teams"!
I see it's not in Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2014&q=The+Too-Much...) but you can get the paper from Libgen: http://libgen.org/scimag/index.php?s=The+Too-Much-Talent+Eff... - I've reuploaded to https://pdf.yt/d/AzOTKVBwmqKla6V6 / https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/243666993/2014-swaab.pdf - but if Libgen didn't work, you could always have tried http://scholar.reddit.com/
I hope none of you think the linked article's thesis is anything more than the uncorroborated opinion of the study's authors. Notwithstanding the journal title, it's not science. It doesn't even resemble science.
If you doubt this, ask yourself how the article's thesis could possibly be falsified. Falsifiability is a requirement for science.
Now ... let the anonymous downvotes begin.
If you doubt this, ask yourself how the article's thesis could possibly be falsified. Falsifiability is a requirement for science.
Now ... let the anonymous downvotes begin.
Fair point,
Nonetheless, I felt the topic was worth discussing. In my experience "teams of very talented people" can often turn into "teams of very competitive people".
Nonetheless, I felt the topic was worth discussing. In my experience "teams of very talented people" can often turn into "teams of very competitive people".
> Nonetheless, I felt the topic was worth discussing.
Oh, I agree. But its source is troubling -- it's put forth as though it has academic depth and evidence, when in fact, it's just another pop-psychology tract.
For some reason, in modern times things like this, things that can never be more than opinion, are dressed up as though they're backed by science. Among uneducated people this gives them an unearned weight.
It's not as though an idea like this is false or unworthy of discussion. It's that it can never be either established as true, or falsified. This means its discussions tend to be endless and inconclusive.
Oh, I agree. But its source is troubling -- it's put forth as though it has academic depth and evidence, when in fact, it's just another pop-psychology tract.
For some reason, in modern times things like this, things that can never be more than opinion, are dressed up as though they're backed by science. Among uneducated people this gives them an unearned weight.
It's not as though an idea like this is false or unworthy of discussion. It's that it can never be either established as true, or falsified. This means its discussions tend to be endless and inconclusive.