The study was done in only one perspective, wich is adding women to a group of men. In other words, men perform better in the presence of women. Next should be trying to add women to more women, or maybe adding men to a group of women, in order to have a bigger picture about how the collective intelligence works when mixing genders.
They studied a number of things and "... when they controlled for the number of women in a group, it was shown that it was the emotional sensitivity scores which won out."
Whatever its merits or flaws, the study was not simply about adding women to groups of men.
1) I read the article
2) Did they try adding women to a women only group ?
3) Did they try adding men to a women only group ?
4) Did they try adding more women to a mixed group ?
5) Did they try adding more men to a mixed group ?
6) Did they try to remove all men from a group and replace them by women ?
6) Does this have to do with women being in a group, or does this just have to do with the group having elements from both genders collaborating ? The conclusions made in the article ,to me, seems more buzz-seeking than enriching.
I think you're severely misunderstanding what it is they did in this experiment. The overall emphasis was not at all on the gender of the participants. As the article took pains to point out, they formed the groups based on a variety of intelligence scores - not gender.
Initially, they discovered that the most significant factors were "the high average social sensitivity of group members, a high rate of sharing who gets to communicate, and more females". Then they controlled for the number of females in each group, and discovered that the number of females actually didn't matter so much - the women in the study were just more likely (than the men) to have high social sensitivity, so a team with many women would be more likely to do well. But a team consisting of all men would also do very well, as long as you made sure to pick men with high social sensitivity.
