Whether two heads are better than one is the wrong question (though sometimes they are)
- PDF / 551,503 Bytes
- 7 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 27 Downloads / 201 Views
Whether two heads are better than one is the wrong question (though sometimes they are) Wolf E. Hautz1 · Stefanie C. Hautz1 · Juliane E. Kämmer2,3 Received: 11 August 2019 / Accepted: 13 January 2020 © The Author(s) 2020
A recent editorial by Norman (2019) in this journal asked whether “[t]wo heads are better than one”. Following a light-hearted and insightful deliberation on medical training specifically and problem solving in general, either individually or in groups, Norman concluded that “two (independent) heads are better than one (group of two heads)” (2019). We applaud the author for questioning a widely accepted belief and for fostering a discussion on the pearls and pitfalls of collaboration in medicine. Drawing on a review of the medical and psychological literature, we would, however, argue that his conclusion (a) leaves important evidence out of consideration, (b) results from a conceptual oversimplification, and (c) addresses the wrong question. In the following, we highlight relevant research on the merits of one versus more heads in the context of medical diagnoses, present a theoretical conception of the problem, and conclude that the question of whether or not to collaborate should be replaced by that of when and why to collaborate, aggregate or work in isolation. We conclude with specific suggestions for further research in this area, illustrating our point with an example from research into group leadership.
What is the evidence? As Norman (2019) notes, ample research on collective intelligence or the wisdom of the crowd shows that two (or more) independent heads are better than one: Algorithmically aggregating two or more opinions usually outperforms the average (e.g., Kämmer et al. 2017; Kurvers et al. 2015; Surowiecki 2005) and sometimes even the best individual (Wolf et al. 2015). The paper by Barnett et al. (2019), which sparked Norman’s editorial and which he skillfully dissects, reports similar findings, albeit challenged by methodological limitations and an unusual use of the term “group” (Norman 2019). * Wolf E. Hautz [email protected] 1
Department of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 16c, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
2
Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Oudenarder Str. 16, 13347 Berlin, Germany
3
Center for Adaptive Rationality (ARC), Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
W. E. Hautz et al.
Given the relevance and ubiquity of teamwork today (Deloitte Insights 2019), the more pressing question is perhaps indeed—as Norman (2019, p. 197) suggests—how two independent heads compare with two interacting ones. We addressed precisely this question in a recent experimental study (Hautz et al. 2015), in which advanced medical students individually or in interacting teams of two diagnosed virtual patients pre
Data Loading...
