> guess what happens

Because intrinsic pleasures of the job are more important to you than your compensation package, you initially find dealing with "lousy coworkers" demotivating. But you endeavour to make the best of a bad situation by finding out how to help your coworkers become better at their jobs. You end up developing a far deeper satisfaction in your work than you'd previously thought possible.

Did I guess right?

I think you misread the op's post -- the suggestion was, "would you work with them again." If they're lousy the answer is obviously no.

Conversely, if you are graded on the curve, you want your coworkers to be provably lousier than you are.

That isn't true all the time. Goldman Sachs uses an even "worse" review process. It's called a 360 review: your employees that report under you, co-workers at the same management level and your managers all rate you. The reviews are bell curved and the worst performers are asked to leave. It just so happens that Goldman Sachs has some of the smartest and people on Wall Street. I think it says a lot because a ton of "failed" Wall Streeters leave and completely destroy the perspective industry they go into afterwards. I don't think this type of system encourages crappy workers, but it does encourage a very ruthless company culture - which might not be the best to encourage collaboration.