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

201–210 of 299 posts

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

#201

Post by cdoxsey »

gowld wrote: post #110
cdoxsey wrote: post #12

On the flip side. Sometimes you're just not that good at stuff despite your best efforts. In college I really struggled with math. Which was a challenge because computer science has you take a lot of math classes. In my calculus class I studied so hard for the final. Did every problem in the book. And I still just got a B in the class. At the same time my programming classes were really easy. I didn't study at all an…

Have you interviewed as places like Epic (Health Care) or Accenture or Knoxville Microsoft Certified Solution Providers, or only at Bay Area webtech?

I've interviewed mostly at startups. I've worked in Boulder, Menlo Park, Austin and NYC. Once I spent quite a while in NYC trying to get a job only to give up, move back to Boulder and reach out to a friend to get a job. I'm so grateful for what he did for me. If not for him I may not be in this industry anymore.

My first job was for a non-startup web development shop. That interview was entirely non technical, but I fear it was the last of a dying breed.

I did come very close to taking an offer at an insurance company once.

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

#202

Post by rjsw »

j-c-hewitt wrote: post #131
krick wrote: post #57

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... "peopl…

95th percentile of the Overwatch ladder is also not the same thing as 95th percentile of competitive tournament players. This entire article is just full of category fallacies to try to support a vague subjective assertion. Gaming ladders with automated ELO systems are also not run like tournament ELO systems in more controlled environments like competitive chess. Games like Overwatch, WoW, Starcraft, Hearthstone, et…

There was a recent example of one player at the top of one ELO system becoming the top ranked player of another [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen#Personal_life

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

#203

Post by icedchai »

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…

Your cousin is probably exaggerating. 1570 is still 99th percentile (assuming out of 1600 obviously.)

1400 is still way above average, at least 95th percentile.

You can do whatever you want in both cases.

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

#204

Post by peripitea »

tyingq wrote: post #9

95th percentile for an SAT score is something like 1450. That's fairly impressive to me. Feels like scoring higher might often have more to do with effort than ability. Is that excluded from the line of thought in the blog post because it's among "people who regularly practice?" Or is it that effort vs ability thing? Not impressive because you were born smart? In a totally "no effort" arena, 95th percentile height fo…

The point is about improving skills.

SAT performance is (largely) determined by intelligence, which is (largely) innate. If you're relatively smart and don't practice at all, you will score higher on the SAT than your less smart friend no matter how long they practice.

This applies even more so to height.

With many learned skills, though, if you invest time and are thoughtful about how you approach your learning, you can get to 95th percentile fairly easily, despite that seeming quite impressive. Many participants don't put the time/effort in, and many of those who do don't do it in a remotely efficient way. If you do both, you are virtually guaranteed to get to a high percentile across a wide range of skills, mostly independent of your innate ability.

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

#205

Post by clarry »

scottLobster wrote: post #156
irishcoffee wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think I’d be able to pass/stomach an interview where I need to justify the need for a consistent paycheck.

Then I'm not sure how you've stomached any interview with a private company. Companies don't give you a consistent paycheck because you have a natural right to one. They give you one because you wouldn't produce value for them if they didn't. The S&P500 analogy is truly apt, because as a private employee you are by definition a financial investment for the company. They pay you on the condition you make more money/pr…

> Then I'm not sure how you've stomached any interview with a private company.

Here's how: companies look for a professional to perform a job. You, as a professional, offer your skillset in exchange for paycheck. It really is that simple. There's no need to justify or excuse wanting to participate in such a mutually beneficial trade. Likewise, there is no need for the company to excuse or justify their need for a new employee.

Believe it or not, there are some companies out there that just look for someone who can do the job. They don't ask you why you want a job (or, gasp, that job in particular!), because it doesn't matter (and is mostly obvious anyway).

Stop paying salaries and you'll see how many of your employees aren't in it for the paycheck. Made-up stories about long term planning don't change that they're in it for the paycheck.

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

#206

Post by timerol »

bonoboTP wrote: post #176
krick wrote: post #57

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... "peopl…

> 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…

> Note that when I say 95%-ile, I mean 95%-ile among people who participate, not all people (for many activities, just doing it at all makes you 99%-ile or above across all people).

This is the start of the second paragraph of the article, so it sounds like you disagree with the premise of what we're discussing

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

#207

Post by TheCoelacanth »

merrywhether wrote: post #82
k__ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing you to some geniuses in the field isn't gonna help. Sure Mozart was better that Salieri, but there is just one Mozart. Companies are always talking about how they just take the best, but in the end they have to settle with what the market gives them.

This reminds me of a time when a hiring manager said something along the lines of “We’re trying to find Michael Jordan, not Scottie Pippen.” My colleague and I were pretty shocked by this, since Pippen was also a great Hall of Fame basketball player, just not one of the top 3 players of all time.

Especially stupid because the company that hired Michael Jordan literally did hire Scottie Pippen.

They are basically saying they want the best performing person in the world but don't want to give them the supporting team that actually makes their exceptional performance possible.

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

#208

Post by bonoboTP »

timerol wrote: post #206
bonoboTP wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Note that when I say 95%-ile, I mean 95%-ile among people who participate, not all people (for many activities, just doing it at all makes you 99%-ile or above across all people). This is the start of the second paragraph of the article, so it sounds like you disagree with the premise of what we're discussing

Depends on how interpret participation. Unless someone participates, you cannot know their score, so I guess a bare minimum participation is indeed required to be able to make comparisons. Theoretically there may be a guy who can already deadlift more than you, he just never tried.

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

#209

Post by solean »

bagacrap wrote: post #58
tyingq wrote: post #9

95th percentile for an SAT score is something like 1450. That's fairly impressive to me. Feels like scoring higher might often have more to do with effort than ability. Is that excluded from the line of thought in the blog post because it's among "people who regularly practice?" Or is it that effort vs ability thing? Not impressive because you were born smart? In a totally "no effort" arena, 95th percentile height fo…

First, no, it's not that amazing if it's something every 20th person has. Second, height is not something you should fixate on. The benefits of being tall are generally over reported. In certain arenas like basketball it helps. In others, like running, pants shopping or air travel, it hurts. I think it's probably about the 12th most important factor in person to person interactions, after eye contact, body language,…

Usain Bolt is 6'5"

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

#210

Post by peripitea »

This is a great post, and it's unfortunate that so many people are missing the point. You may not like the writing, or the layout, or the title, and you may be able to pick holes in the argument, but who cares? That's an easy, boring game to play. Take it from a reformed cynic -- you will grow so much more from trying to figure out what's right about someone's argument rather than what's wrong.

The key insight in the article is: For many skills, becoming highly proficient is easier than most people realize. That is both true and highly under-appreciated, in my experience. Any time you can combine those two attributes, you're writing something important. Keep the "ridiculable" posts coming Dan!

Post reply on HN