Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others | Hacker News Reader

Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others

nytimes.com

119 pointsHillRat89 comments

Finally, teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. Indeed, it appeared that it was not “diversity” (having equal numbers of men and women) that mattered for a team’s intelligence, but simply having more women. This last effect, however, was partly explained by the fact that women, on average, were better at “mindreading” than men.

I wonder how this article would have been received if it stated : 'Teams with more men performed better. This can be explained by the fact that men, on average, are better at solving certain problems than women'. I almost never hear about a scientific study where they discover that men are better than women at something.

Having highly-skilled women is a status symbol for companies in some cities, particularly in NYC. They're simply harder and more expensive to attract - e.g. women without children get paid 30% more than men with the same education in NYC.

In other words:

More success -> able to attract and afford more of the expensive status symbols like high-skilled women.

Not too sure about a cause and effect in the other direction though.

women without children get paid 30% more than men with the same education in NYC.

I've never heard that before, and some quick research doesn't seem to back it up.

US wide, recent female graduates with the same education as men earn 82% of their salary.[1]

[1] http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/graduating-to-a-pay-gap-th...

That study doesn't take into account children, which are a huge factor, I would imagine. In households with children it is common for the woman to assume the role as the primary caregiver while the man assumes the role of the provider. As such, I imagine the woman likely feels less pressure and has less time to pursue a higher pay, while inversely the man feels pressure to increase his pay to fulfill his assumed role in the family.

The point was about NYC in particular, so US-wide statistics are not particularly relevant. And the original point was also about highly skilled workers without children. Your article is a study about 1 year after graduation (from undergrad).

Yes I understand that. Hence my request for evidence.

The person you originally responded to provided one in another comment (which seems to suggest 20%, not 30%): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8912097

> female graduates ... earn 82% of their salary

That's wrong. By the AAUW's own numbers, the women in their study earned 93% of the men's salaries. Get the PDF. Scroll nearly to the end, look for the infographic and text with the 93% number. Personally, then, I split it in the middle, and I'd guess that an unbiased researcher might discover that women earn 96.5% of what men do.

The 82% number which the report pushes much more strongly is the difference _before_ womens' choices are taken into account.

The sad and disturbing part is that the AAUW (and most of modern feminism?) is pushing bad data for political gains and unfair preferences.

Actually the OP's own reference uses the 80% figure too[1]. Wikipedia says between 93% and 96% after controlling, though this isn't for graduates.[2]

It is worth noting that it shows a reverse pay gap in a very limited circumstance (some cities, under 30 with no kids).

[1] http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...

[2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap#United_States

women without children get paid 30% more than men with the same education in NYC.

Can you provide your source for this?

Sorry, I stand corrected. It's only 20% higher for young women than men in NYC.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...

To my original point -- lots of status symbol trends are conflating the cause and effect analysis of why teams with women are more successful.

Decent analysis won't be simple, and the analysis is a total failure if they simply ignore this strong factors.

Your source does not suggest that the cause of the salary differential has anything to do with smart women as business status symbols. The article states that the most likely source of the difference is education, that the women are better educated and therefore have higher salaries. Further it holds true more so in cities that have a knowledge based economy.

I, too, would like a citation on this (not that I disbelieve you, but I am curious what data and methodology were used to come up with it).

Are you comparing women without children against men in general, or women without children against men without children?

>I almost never hear about a scientific study where they discover that men are better than women at something.

Maybe women are just better than men at everything?

What about teams of, say, construction workers or lumber jacks?

It probably wouldn't have been posted.

That's because controversy and polarization are the two biggest propaganda techniques to sell papers. Everyone knows that women are better at some things than guys and vice versa - men can't have babies and breast feed. Women can't have babies without sperm. Everything else is kind of a free for all

A few decades ago there were papers and popular reports like that. They were fashionable then. This is what is fashionable now. It will change back. Then back again.

I did kind of feel as though they buried the lede when I read that part. Oh, communication and emotional intelligence make for better group dynamics? Snooze. Wait, women are categorically better group members, and are better at "mindreading"? Why is this not being researched further?

I thought I'd add a few tidbits here on gender differences.

I play women's football and coach high school guys football. Football is one of the most teamwork-dependent sports out there. Everyone has to be doing his job every single play. There's no way for one player to carry the team.

Before I started coaching guys' football, I had heard consistently from other coaches in my women's league that women are way easier to coach than men in the game of football. Reasons given included less attitude, less individualism, less ego, more willing to work together, etc. When I started coaching high school ball, this was exactly the case. So much of my time was wasted beating the individualism out of these boys and getting them to play for each other, not themselves.

Maybe it's that football attracts a certain type of male. But I think women might be more naturally disposed to working on a team than men on average.

I'm pretty sure Manning and other great QBs were capable of carrying entire teams. Not to argue your point, with which I agree, but just saying :)

I'm going to say sure, great players can make their teams better. Much more so in fact. However it takes more than just one person to be able to win games.

Look at Favre. Great in Green Bay, dismal on the Jets, pretty darn good in Minnesota. Differences were the teams/line/wr's were better in Green Bay and Minnesota. If you are getting sacked every third play, you aren't going to be able to carry your team like in other sports.

Also Adrian Peterson (before all the legal issues) was amazing before last year. All of a sudden parts of the offensive line of MN starts imploding and he goes from best in the league to 'just' really good. If it only takes 2 players on a team to bring a player from almost breaking one of the greatest records in football to average, there is something to be said there.

Note I'm a vikings fan, hence my MN examples.

I don't see how even an exceptional quarterback can be effective if the offensive line and other backs don't block consistently well, or if the receivers don't consistently run the right routes, escape their coverage, actually catch the ball, and run well with it after the catch, or if the running backs don't find the holes the line must create, make good cuts, deflect tackles, and never fumble, or if the place kicker and/or punter don't consistently deliver when one of those things goes wrong, or if despite doing all that stuff right the defense never makes a stop.

I agree. Offense can't do anything without a solid line. QB would be sacked every play and RBs would be tackled for loses all day long.

Talk to any football coach and they'll tell you how critical the line is to the entire offense. Our old QB used to cook a special dinner for all her o-line every season as a thank-you.

Without an offensive line? Yeah right.

Poor o-line. Their importance to recognition ratio is probably one of the greatest injustices in the sport.

A huge part of a quarterback's success is their ability to organize their teammates--through leadership and knowledge--for the best chance of success on every play.

First, women playing football have a common enemy: the evil men who tell them they can't, the patriarchy! A common enemy is great for team dynamics.

I can't imagine a spot on the team is sought after by girls the same way it is for guys. When I was in H.S. the football players were the top, they were kings. They had special privileges, they were treated better by teachers, it was always the other guys fault if they picked a fight, etc. They had fought for and earned social status and they were constantly fighting to keep it. The worst player on the team was still part of the team which earned them at minimum social status and physical protection. They also had enormous expectations of winning, of making the playoffs, they were "representing the school."

There were other implications of football as well, like college scholarships. Being good could have a drastic effect on their quality of life in the long term. I don't want to diminish what the girls are doing, but I don't see any way they have the same incentives or pressures that the guys have.

"I am a member of a team, and I rely on the team, I defer to it and sacrifice for it, because the team, not the individual, is the ultimate champion." - Mia Hamm (For who do know who she is, she is a ex-US soccer captain)

Mia Hamm only proves my point: female athletes don't face the pressures or incentives that males face. When she was playing women's professional soccer in the U.S. the league even existing was considered a success. Her salary peaked at $93,000. Peak salary for the WNBA in 2013 was $107,000. As of 2014 being on an NFL practice squad for a season pays a minimum of $102,000. Being signed to the team pays a minimum over $400k, the max salary for 2014 is $22,000,000.

In 2009 the average salary for Women's Professional Soccer players was $32,000. We can idealize female athletes all day, but they simply don't have the same incentives as men to be selfish so it's not a telling comparison.

Think about this, the University of Michigan is willing to pay the football coach ten times what they pay their own president[0].

[0] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2014/12/18/universit...

I don't think your incentives argument is actually valid. In order for a player to be, say, drafted by an NFL team, he has to be able to work with the team. Teams routinely blacklist players from the draft that have poor sportsmanship or teamwork skills.

Furthermore, when I started coaching guys, we had a terrible football team. 1-7. There was no school pride, barely anyone attended the games. To the school, the team was a joke. The only players we had on the field were the guys that loved the sport would tough out a losing season. And we still had the same issues with teamwork/ego/individualism as with winning seasons.

Individual success for a member of an NFL team is the difference between $22,000,000 and $405,000. Per year. That's a massive incentive to act as an individual.

It great that you enjoy what you do, but a better comparison would be kickball teams, because everybody's there for the same reasons.

You've created a false dichotomy between "individual success" and "being a team player." Part of being an exceptional individual football player is being a good team player, which will be reflected in salaries.

Your argument has gotten incredibly tangential at this point and it's clear that you just want to pick a fight about the mens vs womens sports. (Backhanded comment comparing women's football to "kickball" not appreciated.)

Have a good day sir.

Then you've almost completely misunderstood me. My whole argument is that men's vs. women's football is a bad area for teamwork comparisons because of the wildly differing cultures, costs, risks and rewards involved. And what's a team sport that both men and women play in the same way where everybody has about the same amount to gain/lose? Kickball.

It's not a backhanded comment nor an insult, it's not tangential because it's my central argument. But I suppose we'll agree have to agree to disagree.

> First, women playing football have a common enemy: the evil men who tell them they can't, the patriarchy! A common enemy is great for team dynamics.

^^^ Really? This is a rather immature statement.

Also I don't really see how your point relates to my argument that women have a natural penchant for teamwork.

I guess playing because you're passionate about the sport isn't sufficient 'incentive?'

Women's football has pressures and hardships that men's football doesn't have. For one, teams are not affiliated with any school so we have to buy our own equipment, rent the field, pay for traveling across the country. I spent about 1K every year playing football (and have spent a few more Ks paying for three sports injury surgeries).

We all have full-time jobs, and many have families and children. Most of my free time from January to July is taken up by weightlifting, practicing, watching film, and traveling for games. So a typical practice day for me looks like 8-4:30 programming job, 5pm get home, 5:30 leave for practice, 9pm get home, eat dinner, go to bed, repeat.

No fame. No social status++. If anything, you're making an argument that female football players have a more "pure" reason behind playing football. (Though I would never make that claim, so as to insult our male counterparts that are just as passionate about the game.)

> If anything, you're making an argument that female football players have a more "pure" reason behind playing football. (Though I would never make that claim, so as to insult our male counterparts that are just as passionate about the game

This is -exactly- what I'm saying. Exactly. But I would add that for males struggling for social status is a very old and pure pursuit in and of itself.

I believe everything you said is correct. This is still a non issue.

What the GP was complaining about is the political climate where it is natural for a scientist to openly state that women are better than men at X, while it would be career suicide to claim that men are better than women at Y.

I agree with the statement on political climate. No argument there.

Counter example: I worked with a woman who was such a team player that after literally every email she sent me she would walk over to my desk and disturb me to check that I got it and get my response. Maybe she had only ever used a one way email system. I could have done with a little less teamwork in that situation.

Just for clarity: which kind of football are you talking about?

The study measured the ability to "mindread" and that sentence simply states that the women in the study performed better in that test. It's not a generalized statement about women.

What's your point?

Isn't the idea that you can say one but not the other somewhat concerning?

> the idea that you can say one but not the other

If that was the parent's point then I wish he would have simply said that so that I could have disagreed, rather than whatever weaselly thing he wrote.

I don't think you'd even get published for presenting any result that runs counter to the feminist orthodoxy in academia. Or that any career-minded researcher would ever take the risk of being labeled as misogynist.

With that said, the result itself is interesting enough. We know intuitively that women tend to make consensus decisions, and men are more individualist. That consensus building leads to measurable results in the quality of group decisions is very interesting. I wonder how those results would hold in nonWestern cultures, where men are group-oriented already.

Keep in mind that there is a slight bit of bias built in to the study. It provides evidence women are more adept at making group decisions (confirming our intuition), but would leave us to assume that a good group decision is the best decision. What about the decision of a single leader (where we'd expect men to have an advantage)? So an interesting follow-up to this study might be to compare the quality of group versus individual decisions.

The reason that articles seem to skew toward women in their overt descriptions of ability is that the prevailing presumption for decades has been that men are better at everything in business.

This part:

"Online and off, some teams consistently worked smarter than others. More surprisingly, 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 emotion-reading skills."

can be read as a variation on John Boyd's OODA loop. Boyd made the point, repeatedly, that in war and sometimes in business, victory typically goes to whoever can iterate through ideas more quickly, as new information comes in. The winners are not necessarily smarter, they simply iterate faster based on the information they have. And the same seems to be true of the teams being described here.

More information on OODA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

My guess is that what make a group successful in the short run, like if you throw a group of strangers together and tell them to do tasks together in a monitored environment for 5 hours, may not be the same things that make a group successful in the long run.

The importance of emotional intelligence should decrease as roles are carved out and members define their niches, and the importance of individual ability should increase as the group optimizes itself.

That sounds nice, but my experience is usually that people start to build fiefdoms that they don't want other people messing with, intraoffice politics gets involved, and groups become less and less about solving problems and more about individuals working for their own promotions.

That's a complex system of overlapping and competing subgroups hopefully functioning together as one large group. I would expect that to be more complicated.

That was my thought as well. I'd be really interested to see how these patterns are born out over time, given all the storming/forming/norming/etc stuff that goes on when teams are first put together or altered.

I might be wrong, but I had a look at the original paper's methods and the experimental process seems to be based around producing many p-values and then trawling looking for significance. They don't seem to correct for multiple-testing outcomes though. This resembles what's been described as p-hacking (http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-err...)

I could well be missing something though, so please correct me if I'm off the mark.

People overvalue (democratic) teamwork. I'd like to argue that a good leader with a team of followers is more effective than a team where everyone is equal. For example: the pyramids, cannot be build by one man, but wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for central leadership.

Take Steve Jobs, it was his vision that made Apple successful.

Teams need skill, but they must also be undivided. Democracy in teams essentially divides the team, those opposed and forced to act according to the majority will not be cooperative. The best results are that of a single visionair with or without a team of followers.

I'd say that in very small teams (up to 6 people), it's better to not have a certain leader. Someone will become more dominant in the group anyways (usually a person whom everyone trusts and likes). In big teams, it's hard to get anything done without someone set to lead it.

I think you're right. In my personal experience I've found that in most small teams, there are few who want to lead. If you have mature members, this becomes less of a problem. However, I still find diffusion of responsibility a common theme in small teams, appointing a leader to absolve them from any personal responsibility.

Combining a "more dominant someone" with atomic responsibility is probably the best way to go with small teams.

First, that assumes that the leadership role should be a fixed position, which isn't the case. Second, this statement assumes the only option for an egalitarian organisation is a form of consensus democracy. Neither of these things is true

You can have a flat organisation in which different people are responsible for taking the lead, and the others hold him/her accountable for not doing so. If I am in a small team with a few engineers, a few designers, and a few marketing experts, and each of them has their own specialty too, then obviously each of them can and should take the "lead" in their respective specialty. There is no need for a consensus on the majority of topics if we trust each other to know what we are doing.

Sure, for big-picture stuff a consensus is still required, and it might even be beneficial to have an inspiring leader whose vision we are realizing, but it's a pretty big leap from there to this:

> Democracy in teams essentially divides the team

Why would democracy do this more than a top-down view? People would still have opposing ideas, they would just not be heard.

> those opposed and forced to act according to the majority will not be cooperative

Again, do you have any reason to believe this is less likely to happen in an organisation where the direction is decided top-down? Because the only difference I see is whether or not the opposing views are visible - and having those opposing views hidden and unexplained actually sounds like a terrible situation to me.

The entire idea is based around a visionair which people can rally behind. Ideally, this would consist of a leader, creating his/her team by handpicking people who believe in his/her idea.

Democracy divides a team more because people usually agree with the loudest voice, not with the best idea. The leader might not have the best idea, but he's more likely to pick a good idea provided by the team if he's given the time to properly think them through.

You don't have to silence the opposition, anyone can do with some advice from time to time. If a choice is made, however, either accept it or leave. Don't hold grudges that will eventually grow into holding a team back.

> people usually agree with the loudest voice, not with the best idea

The problem with leaders is often, that they think they are the smartest and any idea not from them is automatically bad.

This is a problem. Often ideas are linked with people and not evaluated independently of that. We had success in our team with doing information gathering and idea generation as anonymous as possible. People can read and comment on ideas anonymously before it's discussed in person or decisions are made. That way people think of having a hand in the development of more ideas. This helps lessen the influence of large egos. Also it helps people who are shy to participate more easily.

> accept it or leave. Don't hold grudges

Also true. Grudges and constant complaining are not good for team spirit. However if people are often overruled and their reservations turn out to be true in the end, then your decision process sucks.

> Democracy divides a team more because people usually agree with the loudest voice, not with the best idea.

And this does not apply to people rallying behind leaders? I mean, I'm not saying having a leader to rally behind is bad, but if this is the argument in favour of it then the only difference is that we are shifting the level at which these flaws occur.

> You don't have to silence the opposition

And yet I get a downvote simply for having a dissenting opinion...

> If a choice is made, however, either accept it or leave. Don't hold grudges that will eventually grow into holding a team back.

So your implication is that this suddenly doesn't apply in a democratic situation? I mean, sure, if you are comparing one team where people respect each other's opinions to one where they don't and people don't hold grudges, of course the former team will perform better. But why would a democratic team hold more grudges?

One can come up with theories, but I'm not sure there is a clear difference in outcomes between more hierarchical or more horizontal management styles, at least large enough to overcome all the other ways companies differ as an explanatory factor. To take two neighboring countries with many similarities but very different management styles, Finland typically uses a hierarchical management style, while Sweden has a very consensus-oriented, horizontal style. That produces somewhat of a "natural experiment" (though imperfect, like natural experiments usually are) where if one management style was radically better than the other, we ought to see big differences in outcomes between Finnish and Swedish companies. For example if your hypothesis is correct, Finnish companies should be much more successful than Swedish companies. But there doesn't really seem to be a big effect there.

You have a point, although it is more likely that the success of a hierarchical management style is more closely related to the effectiveness of the person in charge. Given that the one in charge isn't being undermined by next-in-command. Note: followers.

In my hypothesis I was already assuming a somewhat perfect leader and followers, which is impractical at best and unrealistic.

I do think it's time that people start valuing the individual more than the team. In my experience a team is usually less effective then the sum of its parts.

taking an outlier as representative of a population si never a good ideaq

A visionary leader does not mean people underneath them are in full agreement -- just that they are compelled to follow the vision, and act undivided, even thought there is likely quite a bit of divisiveness at a personal level.

A democractic decision does not mean that people who disagreed will fight against the group. If their voice was heard, they know they will be part of the majority for other decisions, there is little reason not to cooperate when actually working on the project.

The source of the decision has far less to do with how divided a team is than the actual makeup and morale of that team.

> For example: the pyramids, cannot be build by one man, but wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for central leadership.

Because they were valueless items to the thousands of people that it took to slave and die creating them? Yes, those things probably wouldn't have been erected if it were a democratic society at the time. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

The Pyramids are in fact a perfect example of the perils of the "strong leader" model of leadership. At the time, they were a fantastic waste of their society's resources.

Divisiveness will, in fact, kill a team. We're on the same page about that. However, teams throughout history and software development that have had "strong leaders" have plenty of track record of being internally divided. Focusing on "Steve Jobs" is a huge example of survivor bias. Nobody hears about the "strongly led" teams that don't make it big, or anywhere.

Democracy doesn't "divide" teams. It gives people a voice to work through their already present divisions. However, the key word there is work. Simply saying you're a democracy without having patience to go through the work won't get you anywhere. Neither will putting together a team filled with people with irreconcilable differences.

How about sending a man to the moon? That also seems like a waste of resources, we just aren't morally opposed to it because everyone got paid. However politically they both seem to be in the same class of great human endeavours with no practical value.

Neil deGrasse Tyson argues, and I agree, that the ability to send people, probes, satellites, etc. into space is of utmost importance on a grander scale. Imagine being a species capable of space-flight that is unable or unwilling to save itself from destruction when an asteroid comes too near. "We would be the laughing stock of the universe -- 'Oh haha, yea, look at those silly humans who could have saved themselves, but didn't.'". The space program is incredibly expensive, but what is the cost of Earth?

Slaves did not build the pyramids

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/377/how-were-the...

http://skeptoid.com/mobile/4191

At the risk of falling in a No-True-Scotsman argument here, I'd say what passes for "democratic teamwork" nowadays is sheer chaotic social dynamics. Not every vote has equal weight, and to pretend otherwise is either naive or misleading.

Democracy requires good leadership, which is defined not by telling everyone what to do, but by helping everyone keep focused on the ultimate goals (including but not limited to forcibly shutting down anyone who engages in deliberate derailing of the team for personal gain) while allowing everyone to contribute according to their best judgment (which typically exceeds top-down control, by virtue of having intimate and immediate knowledge of the fact on the ground).

I'm not sure that calling this measure "collective intelligence" is fair. If you look at the paper, this is measuring the ability for a team to move quickly without stepping on each others feet. I'd expect "collective intelligence" to measure the ability of a group to come up with the right answer to a difficult problem without so much time pressure and in that case I bet you'd find a much greater impact from intelligent individuals.

The inherent flaw of teamwork is that responsibility is actually atomic. As soon as you assign the same responsibility to a group of two or more persons, things will start to go wrong sooner or later. If you look more closely at successful teams of the past, you will notice that they succeeded because they actually worked as a well-coordinated group of individuals, with a clear separation of responsibilities. Ringo Starr never played the guitar, and John Lennon kept his hands from the drums. If a team is unable to assign responsibilities to its individual members, you don't get a team, you get a committee. And it is no accident that "design by committee" has a negative connotation. What you get out of a committee is not the greatest idea a single member had. What you get out of a committee is the lowest common denominator. And if that denominator happens to be low enough, you won't get any usable results at all.

> a clear separation of responsibilities

Tacking on: I'm sure everyone has an opinion on "power without responsibility" but the reverse--responsibility without power--is also damaging.

Sometimes dysfunction is caused by giving different people different responsibilities, and giving them only "negative" power to veto or reject, or no real power at all.

This is bad for several reasons. First, it sabotages motivation/fulfillment because people can't feel truly invested in creating and owning the work.

Second, it puts the people involved into a "reject everything, cover my ass" mode, since that is their only way for their role to "add value".

Lastly, people can (sometimes quite reasonably) conclude they are being kept around as emergency scapegoats for mistakes that aren't actually their own, which hurts morale and cooperation.

The example would work just as well in reverse: Because Lennon could play the drums, they made great music.

There is a risk in divided responsibilities: If you don't understand the other person's perspective or area of expertise, the group stops working as a coherent whole.

Divided responsibilities among team members, but each individual with the ability to understand the other — which actually returns us to the "theory of mind" that the article refers to.

Wonder how did they measure the individual skill of participants. Because as far as I am aware skill is what helps teams to succeed most. And if everyone was of the same skill, it's not that surprising if those with other advantages, like better emotion reading, performed better.

De-paywalled: https://archive.today/BM7BT

Emotional intelligence is also intelligence. I.Q. tests doesn't bear that.

So smart teams are better than less smart. But it's not about the I.Q. score but about the whole intelligence (emotional and logical) of the team members.

I think this is yet another reason why we should be more sensitive to others and allow for more diversity in our field.

Url changed from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/the-secr..., which points to this.

I am surprised that they say that more women lead to a better performance. There is no single female-dominated team that comes to my mind that achieved exceptional performance. All the great achievements and inventions of humanity, top notch startups, product teams etc. - all consisting of few or no women. Am I missing here something?

Without being an expert in the field, and to simplify it both in terms of the nature of the issue I'm talking about and in terms of suggesting there is a single reason for your question: if women don't get the same opportunities as men, it doesn't matter if they're a bit better or 10x as good, they still won't be part of the achievements.

Inventions of humanity: for much of history in many societies women wouldn't even be considered in consideration for working together with men.

Start-ups, etc.: In the 21st century we have a lot more gender equality, so that many (most?) of the men in the world wouldn't be shocked to work with a woman and consider them equals, but we still have a lot of subtle sexism; the glass ceiling hasn't disappeared.

Here's a good example with some recent data from 538 about gender inequality in movie directing: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/directing-is-even-more-of...

Women's contributions tend to get airbrushed out of history, look at Rosalind Franklin's contribution to the discovery of DNA for instance.

Well, to say women didn't achieve anything is a bit far fetched...

But I had Bad impressions of female dominated teams too.

Most of the time they were paralized by discussions about stuff that just didn't matter.

Note that they don't claim that a female dominated team improves performance, but that adding women to a male team improves its performance.

All the great achievements and inventions of humanity, top notch startups, product teams etc. - all consisting of few or no women

That's a pretty bold claim.

Maria Goeppert-Mayer. Chien Shiung Wu. Anne McKusick. Lilli Hornig. Colleen Black. Leona Woods Marshall.

Look them up. Consider the possibility that the fact that they aren't famous just as instructive as the fact that they exist.

I'm not sure it's fair to suggest that those women aren't famous as some sort of mark against societies sexism (presuming you might feel that way). There are a great number of men that aren't famous who have made significant contributions to science, and there do exist famous women who have contributed.

I'd venture to say most people know, Marie Curie, Jane Goodall, Rosalind Franklin, just to name a few whose names I recognize.

I don't say they don't exist, but what's the ratio? It is also a fact that the higher the IQ gets, the more men we count.

In this case it those specific people and their membership of a particular - fairly famous - team which I found significant.

I agree there are many more non-famous scientists than famous ones.

"Finally, teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. Indeed, it appeared that it was not “diversity” (having equal numbers of men and women) that mattered for a team’s intelligence, but simply having more women."

They explicitly claim "more women = better performace" and not adding one woman improves the male team's performance.

I assume this is highly dependend on the task and male teams make up for their weaknesses with other qualities in the long-term, like ambition and persistency.

You're missing a well-rounded worldview.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com