steel beamsoh wait <| sep |> I saw her in liverpool a couple of days before ! As others as have said she wasnt on for too long but she was still fantastic ! !<| sep |> Thats an amazing and unique color for a supercar ! Keep up the photography ! <| sep |> You can get Pokemon XY for $ 20 right now at bestbuy . <| sep |> Wat dacht je van de superdoei ! <| sep |> Burnt sienna chaks for the saffron ? <| sep |> No way ! you should never get that close ! it would have killed him if he wobbled for any reason . <| sep |> Unfortunately haven ' t found an openaccess copy of this . A few bits from the paperStudy 1 participants Seventytwo 41 females , 31 males student participants were recruited using Facebook and university class email lists . The age range of participants was eighteen to twentyfour years of age . One subject was in full time employment . Subjects were offered a 50 prize for the best performing group . For collective IQ testing , these 72 subjects were formed into 26 groups as described below . and methods Individual IQ was assessed using the Raven ' s Advanced Progressive Matrices Raven , Raven , Court , 1998 , a standardized test of general fluid reasoning capacity . Participants were given 10 min to complete as many as possible of the oddnumbered items of setII of this test and were scored for total correct , as in Woolley et al . 2010 study 1 . Note When conducting these studies , we expected a groupIQ factor to emerge independent of IQ , and wished to consider alternative models for collective cooperation based on personality and moral psychology . For this reason , subjects in study one completed the NEOFFI Five Factor Personality Inventory Costa McCrea , 1992 while in studies 2 and 3 , subjects completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire Graham , Haidt , Nosek , 2009 and a measure of psychopathy Christie Geis , 1970 . We had no need to explain results based on these ancillary scales , and for this reason they are not analyzed or presented here . and a bit of the discussion In this first of three studies , we were able to replicate a general factor accounting for over 13 of variance in groupIQ test scores . This factor , however , showed strong rather than weak loadings on individual IQ . The reported link of groupIQ to numbers of women in the group failed to emerge , and social sensitivity failed to emerge as a significant predictor of groupIQ . This study the lowestpowered of the three reported here had 58 % power to detect the reported 0 . 36 effect from social sensitivity to groupIQ controlling for individual IQ reported in the largest study of Woolley et al . 2010 . Study 2 participants Forty teams of 3 participants were recruited from the public in the city of Chennai , India via contacts made by SG . Sixtyfive subjects were male mean age 26 years , SD 6 . 1 , and 55 were female mean 26 years , SD 5 . 8 . Subjects were incentivized by a prize of 6000 Indian Rupee raffle , awarded to one group at random after the study completed to put this in context , a cinema ticket cost ~ 120 Rupees . An anonymous reviewer requested additional detail on the competence in English language and academic ability of the subjects . English is the official language of India , and fluency in English was a criterion for recruitment . Participants all were educated to college level in English and if in work , the workplace used English as the primary language of communication , as they also interact with international companies . All participants were educated at least to an undergraduate level or pursuing the same . As in the studies under replication , Reading the Mind in the Eyes BaronCohen et al . , 2001 was again used to assess empathizing . To assess individual IQ , we used the Wonderlic 1992 Personnel Test Form A , as used by Woolley et al . 2010 , study 2 . This measure consists of 50 multiplechoice items testing spatial , verbal and mathematical ability , with a test time of 12 min . Individuals score one point for each item answered correctly . Scores are highly correlated with those of other intelligence measures , for example , an average correlation of 0 . 92 with scores on the WAIS has been reported Wonderlic , 1992 . Participants were met in a receiving room where they gave informed consent , and were assigned at random to a group of 3 people prior to entering the testing environment . A total of 40 groups were tested . Groups were tested in a private room , with facilities supporting testing of up to three groups simultaneously . Participants first completed the individual IQ test , then joined their group and completed the 5 group tasks in a randomized order . A research assistant was assigned to each group , and they administered all 5 tasks to the group . The RA recorded conversational turn taking across the measures to allow a test of the hypothesis that more equal turn taking facilitates groupIQ . In response to a comment from a reviewer , we note that the group interaction was not videoed nor assessed using a proprietary AIbased digital sociometric marker system as in Woolley et al . , 2010 study 1 and 2 respectively , but rather was scored online . During pilot work , we ascertained that in these small groups of three people , taking of turns during the tasks was clearly demarcated , and took place at rates giving ample time for the RA to note down the occurrence of a turn in realtime with high reliability . Study 2 replicated support for a gfactor among tasks performed by groups , showing also however that this was closely linked to individual group member ' s IQs . We again found no support for significant effects of number of women or of turntaking on groupIQ . We did find an association of groupIQ with average RME score . On request from an anonymous reviewer that we acknowledge their thought that at their request , the comments of the reviewer are not quoted but instead summarized it is questionable if a raffle could motivate groups to cooperate , we can only state that subjects performed as a group and reported the possibility of a rafflewin to be rewardingStudy 3 Forty teams of three participants were recruited from the general public in the city of Edinburgh , Scotland . Fortyfour were male 76 Female and ages ranged from 17 to 63 years Mean 24 . 23 , SD 9 . 01 . All materials were identical to that of study 2 with the addition of a final groupIQ measure taken after a manipulation encouraging either authority or empathy . For this purpose , the final set of the Raven ' s Standard Progressive Matrices SPM , Set E was used . This test is a standardized measure of fluid intelligence Raven , Raven , Court , 1998 . Procedures were identical to those of Study 2 . As in study 2 , we tested if communication , number of women in the group , or emotional empathizing were associated with enhanced groupIQ using linear models with groupIQ scores as the DV . To avoid any suppression of these variables ' effects , only age was covaried . No significant effects were found for communication 0 . 01 0 . 37 , 0 . 40 , t 0 . 06 , p 0 . 95 . Neither was any significant effect of number of women in the group on groupIQ . To further explore links of groupIQ to gender makeup , we tested linear 0 . 18 0 . 15 , 0 . 52 , t 1 . 11 , p 0 . 27 and quadratic effects 0 . 033 0 . 42 , 0 . 35 , t 0 . 17 , p 0 . 86 but none were significant . We next tested the effect of RME . In a simple linear model predicting groupIQ , and controlling only age , mind in the eyes reached signifcance 0 . 37 0 . 05 , 0 . 70 , t 2 . 34 , p 0 . 025 . We then tested the predicted independence of this effect from individual IQ by adding individual IQ to the model . The effect of individual IQ was large and highly significant 0 . 67 0 . 42 , 0 . 92 , t 5 . 52 , p b 0 . 001 . Contrary to prediction , adding individual IQ had the effect of rendering RME nonsignificant 0 . 15 0 . 10 , 0 . 41 , t 1 . 22 , p 0 . 23 . Combined 2 3 Because studies 2 and 3 used identical test materials and methods , we were able to combine these into a single data set , controlling for study , to gain power and to use structural equation modeling to directly compare competing models of the causes of groupIQ . In the joint data , number of females in the group was not a significantpredictor in a model controlling for study and age F 3 . 74 0 . 99 , p 0 . 40 . Neither were any of the linear , quadratic and cubic functions of number of females significant p 0 . 29 , 0 . 12 , 0 . 72 respectively