Summary of Key Points
This article utilizes concepts such as the Linzermann Effect (where more people result in less individual effort per person), the internal conflicts within the Avengers, and organizational theories (Stanner’s Formula, Brooks’ Law) to argue a central point: In the age of AI, “superindividuals” (a person combined with AI) do exist and can accomplish the work that used to require teams, but the concept of a “superteam” is a myth. The core value of a superindividual lies in their “non-transferable judgment” – the ability to decide what is worth doing and what is right – whereas the premise of teamwork is that judgments can be transferred (following standards, processes, or superior instructions), which are logically contradictory. What a superindividual truly needs is not a team, but a “formation” – a single will (the individual) combined with a group of entities that execute without friction (AI or people who have relinquished their judgment).
I. Super Teams? The History of Internal Conflict in the Avengers Is the Best Example
Marvel’s 11-year film series teaches us that bringing together the strongest superindividuals does not lead to a “combination of strengths” but rather continuous internal strife:
- First Meeting: Iron Man mocks Captain America, Thor looks down on mortals, everyone is wary of Hulk, and they distrust S.H.I.E.L.D., which called them together – a group with independent worldviews that struggle to reach even basic consensus.
- Ultron Incident: Tony and Banner secretly create AI using the Mind Stone without telling the team (because they knew they wouldn’t agree). The problem with a superteam is not that they make wrong decisions collectively, but that they cannot make any decisions at all; important decisions are often bypassed.
- Civil War: Iron Man believes in “power needs to be regulated,” while Captain America believes in “conscience cannot be entrusted”; two conflicting systems of judgment lead to direct division rather than resolution through discussion.
- Titan’s Failure: Star-Lord’s emotional outburst ruins the team’s nearly successful mission. The risk with a team is that one person’s mistake can render all efforts futile.
Even in the final battle, the victory is attributed to “one person’s (Tony’s) judgment” combined with a group of executors – Tony devised the time-travel plan alone, with the others merely executing their roles, not through collective decision-making.
II. Organizational Theory Has Long Revealed: Teams Are Not About Addition, but Subtraction
Organizational theories from decades ago have debunked the illusion that “1+1>2”:
- Linzermann Effect: In a rope-pulling experiment, the total force of 8 people was half of what each person could pull alone; more people result in less effort per person, and the combined force is less than the sum of their individual efforts.
- Stanner’s Formula: Actual productivity = Potential productivity – Process losses (coordination, communication, motivation depletion). The upper limit of a team’s efficiency is its potential productivity, which is never reached due to various losses.
- Brooks’ Law: Adding more people to a software project slows it down, as the number of communication paths increases exponentially (3 people have 3 paths, 10 people have 45 paths). Superindividuals with many judgments only increase communication costs; two top chefs working together in a kitchen or two directors collaborating on a movie rarely succeed because each has their own untransferable ideas.
These theories all indicate that a team is not about adding forces but about struggling with losses.
III. The Key to Collaboration: Can You Transfer Your Judgment?
Collaboration is possible if judgments can be transferred:
- Assembly line workers can collaborate because there are standards for how tight screws should be tightened; judgments are not individual.
- Football teams can work together because the coach determines the strategy, and players execute shared decisions.
- Corporate departments function because hierarchy takes away most of the judgment, leaving only the necessary execution.
However, the core asset of a superindividual is their non-transferable judgment – for example, knowing which products are worth developing and which details cannot be compromised. These are “tacit knowledge” that cannot be documented in procedures or voted on; they are what makes someone a superindividual. If a superindividual could transfer their judgment, they would just be a senior employee.
The contradiction with a superteam lies in trying to make a group of people with non-transferable judgments do tasks that require transferable judgment.
IV. What Superindividuals Need Is Not a Team, but “Extensions of Their Abilities”
Superindividuals need help, but not a team for “brainstorming”; rather, they need a “formation” with zero friction in execution:
- Formation Structure: Like fighter jet formations, where the lead aircraft (the superindividual) makes the decisions, and the support aircraft (executors) simply carry out the plans. For example, J.A.R.V.I.S. for Iron Man or robotic arms – they do not meet or disagree; they provide execution, seamless coordination, and are always ready.
- AI as the Best Executor: The cost of transferring AI’s judgment is zero; it is efficient and unreactive. However, if AI is given judgment authority (like with Ultron), it can become a formidable opponent rather than a helper.
What superindividuals lack is the ability to handle repetitive tasks, seamless coordination that does not undermine their judgment, and the willingness to bear consequences. Teams struggle with these issues, but a formation (AI + executors) can solve them.
V. Teams Were Once a Last Resort, but Now AI Enables Individuals to Work Alone
Why were teams needed in the past? Because abilities were fragmented: coding skills were in programmers’ minds, design skills in designers’ minds. To complete a task, these people had to be brought together, enduring friction. Teams were a logistics solution for an era when abilities could not be easily transferred.
Now, AI has changed this: Skills like coding, design, and financial analysis are available on demand, like water and electricity. There’s no need to persuade or align judgments; they can be obtained instantly. Since abilities can be transferred, the complementary role of teams has diminished.
Therefore, the rise of superindividuals is not because people have suddenly become stronger, but because AI allows individuals to utilize abilities that previously required teams. There’s no need to tolerate the inefficiencies of teams anymore.
Conclusion: Avoid the “Avengers Fallacy”
The “Avengers Fallacy” is the belief that combining the strongest individuals creates the strongest organization. History and theory prove this to be an illusion. AI does not solve the problems associated with teams; it simply allows us to avoid the inefficiencies of teamwork. Superindividuals only need to refine their judgment and find the right “formation” to support them.
If you are a superindividual, focus on your judgment; if you are an organizer, don’t call for a superteam – first determine who makes the decisions and who executes them. And for those who neither judge nor execute, figure out their place.
This article clearly explains the organizational changes in the AI era using relatable examples and theories: Superindividuals are the future, but superteams are just a beautiful misunderstanding.
(End of Article)