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

271–280 of 299 posts

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

#271

Post by krapp »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #270
dntbnmpls wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Take it from a reformed cynic So one extreme to another? > you will grow so much more from trying to figure out what's right about someone's argument rather than what's wrong. Isn't this how we get flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, religious zealots, etc? They focus on "what's right" rather than looking at "what's wrong"? Don't cult leaders or tyrants encourage people to do the same. Look at what's right about my leader…

Well, if you listen to anti-vaxxers, at the very least - then you’ll learn how many times the governments actually fucked up vaccination practices in the world? It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vaccinate, but they have _something_ to say.

> Well, if you listen to anti-vaxxers, at the very least - then you’ll learn how many times the governments actually fucked up vaccination practices in the world?

You don't have to listen to anti-vaxxers to learn that, any more than you have to listen to Alex Jones' rants to learn that corporations dump toxic chemicals into the water supply that can affect the ecosystem. Fringe conspiracy theorists and extremists are not the sole arbiters or guardians of hidden knowledge or suppressed truths.

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

#272

Post by heavenlyblue »

_hardwaregeek wrote: post #258
asiachick wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You posted > I suspect most people are quite bad at learning. It's not something that's taught in schools, and when it is, it's probably lost upon kids due to their lack of executive decision making skills. And then you said tutor kids. Do you find your previous statement to be true? Are most of the kids quite bad a learning and do most of the kids lack executive decision making skills? Or did I mis-understand? I was…

Yeah totally. I don't mean that as a slight against the kids, but they do have poor executive decision making skills and they are not amazing at learning. As did I in high school and middle school. Brain development plays a factor. The commonly cited fact is that executive function is still developing in teenagers and young adults. I'd also argue that teenagers are often sleep deprived or facing other challenges that…

But what should be the skin in the game for the teenagers then in order for them to actually learn something from that experience?

They may be blamed for the wrong reasons; but blame is what’s supposed to push them

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

#273

Post by leetcrew »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #231
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…

A 1450 is not a very good SAT score. Its not good enough to get into top schools. I had a 1500/1600 SAT and I was basically DOA.

this isn't necessarily true, it's around the 25th percentile of students admitted to harvard. probably not gonna happen unless there's something else special about you, though.

I got into a top ten college with a 1470. it was fairly lopsided though (800 critical reading, 670 math; apparently the scores are reported differently now?), I dunno whether that helps or hurts.

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

#274

Post by Zyst »

solipsism wrote: post #239
malisper wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the author's failure, not the commenters'. Putting all the blame on the author is oversimplifying things. Yes the introduction and title could be made better, but that's not an excuse to interpret the post in a way the author obviously didn't intend it to be interpreted.

It's not about fault, it's about actionability. Telling hoards of people they should interpret things differently isn't actionable feedback. You aren't likely to change the behavior of so many people. But the author is just one person. If that author learned to structure their work better they can singlehandedly improve the comprehension of across the entire mass of readers. If you're communicating to the masses and…

To give the opposing argument some form of development, reading comprehension is the responsibility of the reader as well.

Some authors are hard to understand, but the message they are trying to convey could be worth extracting.

As a reader it is preferable for you to be able to extract value out of opaque text. The author owes you nothing. And, presumably you are reading because you think there might be something of value underneath.

If you fail to capture that value (If there is any) that's your loss, not the author's.

Certainly, it would be best if the message were communicated in such a fashion that people would not misunderstand it to begin with. But if, and when things are poorly communicated, if you misunderstand the underlying message the person taking a loss is not the author, but you.

To think otherwise would be to focus too deeply on some sort of exposure, or monetary loss on the part of the author, rather than the failure to capture a nugget of wisdom that might be of utility to your life.

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

#275

Post by openfuture »

bonoboTP wrote: post #256
fyp wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you always had to be 95th percentile in your current peer group (general couch potatoes, high school championship participants, world championship participants, Olympians, Olympic medalists, Olympic champions, Olympic champions twice in a row), then the 95 just doesn't mean anything. Then you just have to be the single very best according to your logic. This is the typical experience for the ivy league types com…

The typical HNer passed 95 in all those things you listed? I think you're vastly overestimating the readers of this forum. Just by the numbers, you can't have so many people who aced through top-5% in Ivy League schools and darted through the corporate ladder in a top SV company. Not to mention that not everyone is American here.

We probably managed to be the 5% a few times but then we came here to settle down as the 95% in our current bracket.

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

#276

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

peripitea wrote: post #210

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…

Corollary: the more you try to explain an idea to someone who doesn't understand it (or doesn't like it - usually one in the same) the more they will try to disagree.

Coming to key insights requires either good faith or investigation, coming to true ones requires both. You can also challenge everything and wait for the really smart people to embarrass you, which, as a lazy person, I find an attractive option :)

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

#277

Post by bsder »

peripitea wrote: post #213
malisper wrote: post #197

It seems like most of the top level responses are responding to the title and not the actual argument. The argument Dan is making is that you can easily get relatively good at most activities. This is because most of the people doing those activities aren't actively trying to get to get better. 95th percentile is probably not the best way to put it since there are tons of activities where nearly everyone is trying to…

There are plenty of sports for which I find this still holds true. A lot of it comes down to how much the required skills to be great are around more innate skills (e.g. speed, height, jumping ability) vs acquirable skills (technique, flexibility, problem solving, mental fortitude). It's very hard to be a 95th percentile soccer, basketball, or track athlete without a decent amount of innate athleticism. But I've seen…

> It's very hard to be a 95th percentile soccer, basketball, or track athlete without a decent amount of innate athleticism.

Completely not true.

Having absolute solid basics that you drill every single day (dribble with both hands or both feet, run your conditioning, shoot free throws, etc.) puts you in the 95th percentile until probably Division 1-A college level (at which point, yes, innate size and body type start to matter).

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

#278

Post by kbenson »

mathgladiator wrote: post #244
peripitea wrote: post #210

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…

Very good point and wise. I find this more applicable as a leader when reviewing designs. It's so easy to poke holes and complain, but it is hard to find the good and value that. It is worth it because I can then focus my comments on what is essential and then drive accountability to get all the details done well enough.

Is there a review system (code, design, writing, whatever) that allows you to color code chunks of what you're reviewing and has a well defined color scheme? E. G. Shades of green for mildly to very good, shades of red for mildly to very bad, and some other colors to denote confusion, etc.

It would be useful to see feedback of where you did stuff right, but allow you to focus on where you did stuff wrong. Making sure you're aware of what you did well is important both for being able to repeat it and psychologically, and as a reviewer it can help you make sure you are providing that positive feedback (a bunch of red with no green should be obvious).

Thats bit to say it shouldn't include specific comments, but sometimes there's not a lot to say about a large chunk of what you're reviewing that you're generally pleased with, but the person that produced it could definitely benefit from knowing that.

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

#279

Post by hardwaregeek »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #272
_hardwaregeek wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah totally. I don't mean that as a slight against the kids, but they do have poor executive decision making skills and they are not amazing at learning. As did I in high school and middle school. Brain development plays a factor. The commonly cited fact is that executive function is still developing in teenagers and young adults. I'd also argue that teenagers are often sleep deprived or facing other challenges that…

But what should be the skin in the game for the teenagers then in order for them to actually learn something from that experience? They may be blamed for the wrong reasons; but blame is what’s supposed to push them

I don't know. But I don't believe blame is a good impetus. I spent a lot of my high school experience stressed and blaming myself for my inability to work inhuman and inhumane hours. Only in retrospect have I realized that I was not at fault. Only now have I understood that working so hard with so little sleep on tasks I find so uninteresting is not admirable in the slightest.

This will only get worse. It's becoming harder and harder for students to get accepted to colleges, which in turn means the bar for them is rising, often to ridiculous levels. The students who make it to the high levels are not the smart, charismatic future leaders of tomorrow. They are neurotic, depressed, sleep deprived and scared. They are pushing themselves to ridiculous, unhealthy limits for whatever reasons. And by selecting them and placing them in the same school, the same room, we are only concentrating these qualities.

I don't know what we should use to push students forward. But I know that teenagers these days could use less blame.

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

#280

Post by peripitea »

bsder wrote: post #277
peripitea wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of sports for which I find this still holds true. A lot of it comes down to how much the required skills to be great are around more innate skills (e.g. speed, height, jumping ability) vs acquirable skills (technique, flexibility, problem solving, mental fortitude). It's very hard to be a 95th percentile soccer, basketball, or track athlete without a decent amount of innate athleticism. But I've seen…

> It's very hard to be a 95th percentile soccer, basketball, or track athlete without a decent amount of innate athleticism. Completely not true. Having absolute solid basics that you drill every single day (dribble with both hands or both feet, run your conditioning, shoot free throws, etc.) puts you in the 95th percentile until probably Division 1-A college level (at which point, yes, innate size and body type star…

Yeah I could be wrong on basketball. I don't play it much but now that I think about it you can be a great shooter without being a great athlete, and that alone can make you quite valuable.
Post reply on HN