Michelle: The average team meeting makes everyone in it dumber. Mark: Wait, what? That feels true, but I didn't think it was scientifically proven. Michelle: It’s shockingly real. Research from experts like Peter Senge, cited in the book we’re discussing today, estimates that a group's collective IQ can plummet by more than 30 percent compared to the IQ of the individuals in it. Mark: That explains my last budget meeting perfectly. It felt like we were all running on dial-up. So what’s going on? Are we all just bad at teamwork? Michelle: It’s more that we’ve never been taught how to think together. And that’s the central mission of the book Collaborative Intelligence: Thinking with People Who Think Differently by Dawna Markova and Angie McArthur. Mark: And get this—they're a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law team. If that isn't the ultimate real-world test of collaborative intelligence, I don't know what is. Michelle: It’s the perfect partnership, really. Markova is a cognitive neuroscientist who has spent decades studying how our brains learn, and McArthur is a brilliant communications expert. They blend hard science with incredibly practical strategies for bridging the gaps between us. Mark: So they’re trying to stop that 30% IQ drop. I’m all ears.

Michelle: Exactly. The reason for that drop is that our entire culture, especially in business, is built on what the authors call a "market-share" mentality. It’s about competition, individual achievement, and protecting your turf. The lone genius. Mark: Right, who has the biggest piece of the pie. It’s a zero-sum game. Michelle: Precisely. But the authors argue that to solve today's complex problems, we need to shift to a "mind-share" mentality, where the goal is to expand the pie by connecting ideas. And they use this incredible historical example to show how quickly that shift can happen. During the London Blitz in World War II, there were families on the same street who hadn't spoken in decades due to bitter feuds. Mark: Old grudges, I can picture it. Michelle: These families were forced to shelter together in the same cramped air-raid shelters every night. And under the shared threat of survival, something amazing happened. The decades-old resentments just... dissolved. They started sharing food, looking after each other's children, and forming friendships. The common cause completely overrode their individual divisions. Mark: That’s a powerful image. But we don't have a literal Blitz in the office. The biggest threat is usually an overflowing inbox or a passive-aggressive email. How does that translate? Michelle: The authors argue that the "threat" today is complexity, disruption, and the risk of becoming irrelevant. The common cause is the shared goal of the organization. They point to examples like Microsoft and Apple. For years, they were fierce competitors—market-share thinking. But then they collaborated to allow Windows to run on Macs. Mark: Oh yeah, I remember that. It seemed impossible at the time. Michelle: It was a mind-share move. Apple got access to a huge library of software for its users, and Microsoft expanded its operating system's reach. They were still competitors, but they found a space where collaborating made them both stronger. They focused on what connected them—serving the customer—rather than what divided them. That’s the core of collaborative intelligence, or CQ.

Mark: Okay, so we need to connect and find common ground. But the "how" feels like the hardest part. People are just wired so differently. You can put two well-intentioned people in a room, and they still talk past each other. Michelle: That's the perfect transition, because the authors say that’s exactly it. We are wired differently. They argue that each of us has a unique "mental operating system," a default way of processing the world. They call them Mind Patterns. Mark: A mental operating system? That sounds a bit like a personality test from a magazine. Am I a Mac or a PC? Michelle: (Laughs) It’s much deeper than that, and it’s grounded in neuroscience. It’s not about labeling you, but about understanding how you think. Dawna Markova shares this incredibly moving story about her own father. He was the CEO of a major corporation, a brilliant, self-made man. But he had a secret: he was illiterate. Mark: Wow. A CEO who couldn't read? How is that even possible? Michelle: Because his mind wasn't wired for visual processing—the 'V' in VAK. He couldn't make sense of letters on a page. But he was an auditory and kinesthetic genius. The 'A' and the 'K'. Every day after school, for ten years, Dawna would go to his office and read his documents into a tape recorder for him. He would listen to them and then walk around the room, thinking through the problems kinesthetically. He built an entire corporate empire by listening and moving. Mark: That’s incredible. It completely reframes what "smart" even means. So this V-A-K thing—Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic—is the basis for these Mind Patterns? Michelle: Exactly. The book explains there are three states of attention: Focused, Sorting, and Open or creative. Your Mind Pattern is the unique sequence of V, A, and K that triggers each of these states for you. For example, someone with a V-A-K pattern gets focused with visual input, like a spreadsheet. They sort information by talking it through—auditory. And they get their best creative ideas through kinesthetic action, like going for a run. Mark: Hold on, let me see if I get this. My pattern might be K-A-V. I need to pace around to focus—that’s Kinesthetic. Then I talk out the options to sort them—Auditory. And my big ideas often come when I’m just looking out the window, staring at something—Visual. Michelle: You’ve got it! And there are six possible combinations. The book shows that so much workplace conflict comes from a pattern mismatch. The VAK boss who needs a written report gets frustrated with the AKV employee who needs to talk it out. Neither is wrong; their brains just speak different languages. The breakthrough isn't changing who you are, but learning to translate. Mark: That makes so much sense. It’s not that my colleague is being difficult; it’s that I’m trying to send him a text message when his brain only has a radio receiver. Michelle: A perfect analogy. And once you understand that, you can stop blaming and start bridging.

Michelle: So, Mind Patterns are about how our brains are wired to process information. But the next layer the book adds is about what our minds are innately brilliant at doing. They call these "Thinking Talents." Mark: Okay, how is that different from a skill? I'm skilled at using Excel, but it doesn't exactly light me up. Michelle: That's the key distinction. A skill is something you learn. A talent is innate, it energizes you, and it's where you can achieve true excellence. The book lists 35 of them, with names like 'Fixing It,' 'Thinking Ahead,' 'Connection,' or 'Making Order.' Using a talent feels like flow; forcing a skill you don't have a talent for leads to burnout. Mark: And I’m guessing we all have a few of these, and a few we definitely do not have. Michelle: Exactly. And those gaps are what the authors call our 'blind spots.' This is where the idea of a 'Thinking Partnership' comes in, and it's illustrated perfectly with the story of a CEO named Nick. Nick was a phenomenal leader—a procedural and relational genius. He could organize any process and connect with any employee. His talents were things like 'Making Order' and 'Feeling for Others.' Mark: Sounds like a great boss. Where's the problem? Michelle: His blind spot was the 'Innovative' quadrant. He had zero talent for 'Thinking Ahead' or 'Innovation.' And this caused him immense anxiety. He would worry obsessively about the future because he couldn't naturally see it. His strength in procedure made him focus on the present, but his weakness in innovation made him fear the unknown. Mark: I know that feeling. So what did he do? He can't just magically become an innovator. Michelle: He didn't have to. That's the beauty of this. He realized his Director of Marketing, Chandra, was a natural innovator. Her mind was always buzzing with 'what if' ideas. So, he formed a thinking partnership with her. When he needed to plan for the future, he didn't try to force his own brain to do something it wasn't built for. He just went and thought with Chandra. Mark: So he didn't have to be innovative; he just needed access to innovation. He outsourced his blind spot. Michelle: He built a bridge to her strength! And that's the most profound idea in the book. We spend so much time and energy trying to fix our weaknesses, trying to become all-rounders. The authors call this path 'skilled mediocrity.' The path to excellence is to double down on your talents and build partnerships to cover your blind spots.

Mark: Wow. So this whole time, we've been operating under the wrong assumption. We've been trying to fix our own weaknesses, to become the lone genius who can do it all, when we should have been building bridges to other people's strengths. Michelle: That’s the entire shift. Intelligence isn't a noun—a static thing you possess inside your head. The book argues it's a verb—something you do, with other people. It’s the energy and insight that is created between minds. And that’s why one of the opening quotes is so powerful: "The most significant danger our species brings to the world is our inability to think with those who think differently." Mark: It’s not the difference itself that’s the problem; it’s the lack of connection. The failure to build the bridge. Michelle: Exactly. We see someone’s different way of thinking as a flaw or an obstacle, rather than a potential resource. We see their methodical pace as slow, not as the talent of 'Precision.' We see their constant questions as skeptical, not as the talent of 'Thinking Logically.' Mark: That really lands. It makes you rethink every difficult interaction you've ever had at work or even at home. Michelle: It does. And it leaves us with a really powerful question to reflect on. So for everyone listening, think about this: Who is the person you find it most difficult to think with? The one whose style just grates on you. Mark: And once you have that person in your mind, ask yourself: what if their most frustrating trait is actually their greatest thinking talent, just waiting for you to connect with it? Michelle: This is Aibrary, signing off.