95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

I find it really very frustrating that the author talks about the "95%" percentile and then does very little to actually justify why he's talking about the 95% percentile and how he's measured it. He's got some anecdata about what he views in overwatch, but you actually need some statistical techniques if you want to justify a statistical number. Of the players in the top 5% how many times was it observed that they committed obvious game losing gaffes? How did he screen the reported rankings for the arbitrary subset of players that he considered real competitors.

I don't think the person who wrote this understands statistics because they're not playing a game where randomness is a large influence in the game. If you talk to top poker players about their game they're not going to talk to you about individual mistakes, they're going to talk to you about constructing ranges. A top 5% poker player isn't just going to beat a top 10% player in a single game or single hand, they're going to have a higher expected return over a long period of time. THe point is to come up with strategies that are successful against a large range of opponents. So whilst you can look at a single event and identify whether it was effective in that particular situation, what you're optimizing for is to get the best return over time. So to take the Overwatch example - whilst you may constantly see game losing mistakes at that level, you won't see the same people making the same mistakes constantly.

So basically - for an article that constantly talks about "95 percentile" or "99 percentile" or "moving from 10%-ile to 40%-ile". I just don't even comprehend how you can title something "95%-ile isn't that good" and then not make any effort to actually evaluate how you're measuring 95%-ile. Which, given this is an article about how people generally do things very badly for stupid reasons, I think is rather ironic.

This blog is in the bottom 5%-ile for readability and layout.

This might be one of those things that only seems true if you live in a world where the bottom quartile or half of people has been chopped off. There are a lot of people out there who are very limited in what they are able to do.

It's maybe not very hard for you or I or Dan Luu to work at something and practice it and reach a level where we are competent or better. But I've seen so many cases of normal people that work incredibly hard at things, and they just never get to that mediocre level. It's frustrating if you are trying to teach or coach or mentor them up, because you can see where things would have to click for them to get over the hump, but there's no keyhole for that key.

Yeah, no, that's just about lousy definitions. The premise suggests that it's easy to become 95%-ile in anything, say, deadlifting among men who deadlift and not just entire population of the planet Earth. Before I can suggest author to try, he hastily corrects himself, that it doesn't mean "95%-ile among people who practice regularly", so "men who deadlift" is invalid domain after all. Rather, it should be... "people who lifted a thing from the ground at any point of their lives"? Not that impressive. And, sure, just converting yourself from "people who lifted a thing" to "people [of the same sex] who actually go to the gym regularly and deadlift" will get you into 95%-ile of the first, broader domain within a couple of years, because people who regularly deadlift would already be less than 5% of the population.

The thing is, it isn't that easy to actually train for deadlifting for a couple of years, it assumes dedication, some health requirements and basically is the difference between people who do some sport and people who don't. This is obviously ridiculous comparision to anyone talking about anything but playing Overwatch.

So, sure, this surprising life lesson will turn out to be true if you continue to craft the domains you compare in such way that you match competitive ice skaters vs people who were on the ice rink one or twice, MMA fighters vs guys who were in a streetfight once back at school, etc.

And while I don't play Overwatch, I don't think it's actually different than that, it's just that "people, who both can and want to waste significant portions of their life time in a dedicated attempt to become better Overwatch players" are less than 5% of people, who created an account on the Overwatch server (or whatever).

>Based on my interviewing history I'm not in the 95th percentile of programmers - I'm routinely outright rejected and don't even land the on-site interview. And this is basically my best skill for which I've invested an enormous amount of time and energy.

This means you aren't high in the 'programming interview' skill set. While related, I consider it distinctly different than the 'programming' skill set. I think it shares more in common with other interview skill sets than it does with programming. I suggest not using this to judge your proficiency in programming, and if you want to improve this (say you plan to be job hunting soon), I would focus more on interviewing skills than programming skills. Especially if you aren't landing on-site interviews.

For starters, improving your resume to have a good UX and working on how to answer interview questions, especially the non-technical ones, would likely help. Things like how to 'correctly' answer "What is your biggest weakness?" or "Why are you looking for a job?". A lot of it comes down to learning how to lie without appearing dishonest (personally I hate how much honesty during interviews is treated as a bad thing, but I have to play the game by the rules that already exist).