Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 299 posts

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#91

Post by EpicEng »

scoutt wrote: post #80
injb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why this was downvoted, but you're right. Geniuses of that level are rare and extremely lucky. It's like lamenting that you'll never be financially independent because you didn't win the Megamillions lottery. Only a tiny minority of people have that kind of luck and no one has any control over it.

I agree there is a degree of luck in some people, but I'll be wary about the term genius . Personally, when someone says Genius , in some contexts, I take it like an excuse to justify the existence of people that excel doing something, just because they are born-geniuses . The fact that some of these geniuses dedicated their entire lives to improve themselves (being it by practicing on an instrument or doing math, fo…

Genius is, in my experience and from what I know of history, is something people are born with though. I've met (and worked with) exactly one person I would place near the designation of "genius". I wasn't under the impression that he didn't work hard to gain knowledge, but he just had a different way of approaching problems.

I like to think I'm pretty good at what I do, but I could be struggling with something for hours that he could break down in a way that just never occurred to me. So yes, he put in the time, but it was his thought process that made him great, and I'm not convinced that's something that can be taught to great effect.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#92

Post by j7ake »

The definition of 95th percentile is confusing. I think if you scored top 95th at a National exam in high school you would be competitive to choose the university you want. That is impressive.

Being 95 percentile in college sports would probably allow you play the sport professionally.

Having a website in the 95th percentile in terms of traffic would probably be extremely impressive.

Having a 95 percentile restaurant quality in the world would probably result in Michelin stars

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#93

Post by nemothekid »

Traster wrote: post #51

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 c…

Overwatch has a competitive ladder which ranks players on a ELO-based rating system. The percentiles were published, by the game developers, at one point and are assumed to be stable.

I play(ed) a lot of Overwatch, enough to get into the top 1% (Grandmaster). The rank he derides on, 90-95%, is Diamond, which is quite famously "ELO Hell", because that is where a lot of naturally talented players end up before deciding that blaming their teammates was the issue instead of reviewing their own gameplay. What irks me is, the top 4% of that game, Masters, I would actually consider "good". Sure there is a gap between the top 4%, top 1% and top .1%, but the mistakes you see between those groups are less about "missing fundamental gameplay mechanics" and more flawless execution, awareness and inference. (For anyone that plays the game I would consider 4250 the top .1%, which is almost entirely pros and very talented streamers).

In other words, while I agree the top 10% of the community isn't all that good, the top 5% of that very game is respectable. My beef is less with the ranking and more with his "definition" of good.

Many of the top 1% of Overwatch do regular scrims in semi-pro leagues. Comparing this to basketball, does this mean the bar for "good" is the NCAA, d-league and NBA?

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#94

Post by ErikAugust »

Overwatch is a mass participation activity that is casual for most. Performance at the 95% is a joke to a professional. Just like a marathon. 95% of all runners is something like 3:15. That’s more than an hour slower than a decent pro.

It really means nothing and people aren’t competing with each other in this way. A pro doesn’t care about a recreational participant. Usually the people who are pretty good at least have awareness of how good the best are and may be fans but that’s kind of it.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#95

Post by zodiac »

5cott0 wrote: post #45

There is something so depressingly robotic about the obsession with being the best at everything all the time. Career, income, diet, exercise, lifestyle, hobbies; can't even have fun anymore without spending days holed-up researching esoteric hyper-optimizations. Some of you need to relax and stop sucking the fun out of everything.

I personally find it fun to become better or trying to see how close I can get to being the best at my hobbies.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#96

Post by ivanche »

lmilcin wrote: post #2

I have played couple of games competitively. I have been somewhere in top ten to top three in the world in some of them (we are talking small communities with large number of accidental players, nothing really to brag about). My observation is it is critical to somehow get a feeling what it is/means to be good at the game. This means identifying where is the focus of a good player. Having been playing competitively I…

In a nutshell - you have to do deliberate practice or you stagnate. Musicians know this for ages.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#97

Post by lordleft »

cdoxsey wrote: post #77
lordleft wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You mentioned faring well in programming classes. Interview performance aside, do you feel that you're a good and perhaps exceptional programmer?

I can be very quick and can work diligently (grit my way through a problem) but I struggle with design and some high level concepts. Interviews ask abstract and theoretical computer sciency type questions and in real life I would usually google my way to a solution on those types of questions, so I do very poorly on the spot. (forget everything or say something dumb) But in practice I can usually deliver quicker than…

I know our industry will debate the merits of google-style interviews forever. I think that the system may be a decent way of capturing good programmers, but that it also allows for awesome programmers to fall through the cracks. Don't let performance in interviews dictate your assessment of your on-the-ground performance. You sound like a capable coder in my view of things.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#98

Post by scoutt »

EpicEng wrote: post #91
scoutt wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree there is a degree of luck in some people, but I'll be wary about the term genius . Personally, when someone says Genius , in some contexts, I take it like an excuse to justify the existence of people that excel doing something, just because they are born-geniuses . The fact that some of these geniuses dedicated their entire lives to improve themselves (being it by practicing on an instrument or doing math, fo…

Genius is, in my experience and from what I know of history, is something people are born with though. I've met (and worked with) exactly one person I would place near the designation of "genius". I wasn't under the impression that he didn't work hard to gain knowledge, but he just had a different way of approaching problems. I like to think I'm pretty good at what I do, but I could be struggling with something for h…

Exactly. Some people just have it. I was referring to easy-labeling people genius.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#99

Post by robjan »

techslave wrote: post #43

well, i don’t buy from sellers with under 98% rating from amazon or ebay. 95% is atrocious if true. for sellers with lower absolute number of feedback responses, i quality it by reading negative feedback because many times it’s the customers that are atrocious. but if you have thousands of responses and only 95%, forget it. this means almost all amazon marketplace sellers are disqualified for me. it’s gone downhill f…

This is not related. 95th percentile means the top 5% of a group compared with everything else in the group.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#100

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

Spooky23 wrote: post #63
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the 95%-ile is actually good when it is something that almost everyone has to do. Everyone in school is practicing at least a bit on reading comprehension, and the SAT is across lots of schools, if you are the in 95%-ile of millions of people it might be more impressive than being in the 95%-ile of tens of thousands of people.

Remember that everyone has different goals. My cousin was heartbroken when she got a 1570 on the old SATs, as her dream of going to some university was crushed, as she was competing with peers in an elite high school. She had to settle for Brown or something, and was convinced that life was over. For me, I didn't have the desire or resources to do that. I got my 1400 and was able to choose from any of a dozen schools…

Are you saying she was heartbroken with a 1570 out of the old 1600 or the slightly-less-old, but still not current 2400? I can't believe that 1570/1600 is going to disqualify you from anywhere.
Post reply on HN