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

95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 161 posts

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#11

Post by toolz »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #3
bombcar wrote: post #2

A not quite obvious side effect of this - you should be aware of the vast majority of things you do that you are not in the top 5% - and don’t sweat it. Most things in life just need to be done, not done exceptionally well, so spend your effort on the things that matter. For example, I shop pretty badly at the store, no list, no plan - not worth it to me to develop those, I can spend time elsewhere on the things I ca…

Using a shopping list would actually save you time to spend elsewhere rather than at a crappy grocery store :)

Time is rarely the limiting factor in achieving goals. The vast majority of us kill time with time sinks like playing on our phone or watching TV series - none of which are likely to be life goals.

Instead optimizing for putting productive energy towards real goals and avoiding menial tasks that at best save some time seems like a more optimal strategy.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#12

Post by e4e78a06 »

elil17 wrote: post #5

A video game and public speaking seem like really weird/unusual examples. A ton of people play video games, very few people do it professionally. A ton of people give talks, but it’s usually a small part of their jobs. Being even 50%-ile among professionals for either would certainly be extremely impressive. When I think about normal jobs, which are less competitive fields than professional gaming or speaking, being…

> Being even 50%-ile among professionals for either would certainly be extremely impressive.

I think you'd be surprised at how low the bar is. And how people either 1) don't care about actively improving or 2) don't effectively learn from their mistakes. For a lot of people their career is just a way to get paid. As long as they don't get fired that's enough for them. And for other people they never developed a growth mindset and a habit of introspection, or they treat mistakes/failure as a painful memory to be avoided rather than something to be learned from.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#13

Post by tasha0663 »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #3
bombcar wrote: post #2

A not quite obvious side effect of this - you should be aware of the vast majority of things you do that you are not in the top 5% - and don’t sweat it. Most things in life just need to be done, not done exceptionally well, so spend your effort on the things that matter. For example, I shop pretty badly at the store, no list, no plan - not worth it to me to develop those, I can spend time elsewhere on the things I ca…

Using a shopping list would actually save you time to spend elsewhere rather than at a crappy grocery store :)

More time to spend bikeshedding the ultimate grocery list productivity process and integrating a smart refrigerator!

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#14

Post by rr808 »

Trivial to be top 5 percent of the general population at programming

Possible to be top 5 percent of the programmers

Very difficult to be in the top 5 percent of FANG programmers

Nearly impossible to be in the top 5 percent of Google Principal engineers

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#15

Post by ajkjk »

elil17 wrote: post #5

A video game and public speaking seem like really weird/unusual examples. A ton of people play video games, very few people do it professionally. A ton of people give talks, but it’s usually a small part of their jobs. Being even 50%-ile among professionals for either would certainly be extremely impressive. When I think about normal jobs, which are less competitive fields than professional gaming or speaking, being…

95% percentile is _way_ below professional-level. That's kinda the point: it's super attainable for anybody who works at it.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#16

Post by twofornone »

>But I think it's just the opposite: most people can become (relatively) good at most things.

I think this point of view is not only blatantly false but also much more dangerous than most people realize. It sets an unrealistic standard across all disciplines, with a wide range of detrimental effects:

1. People entering majors that they are not qualified for, taking on more debt and failing later than than they otherwise would

2. Incentives for schools and colleges to inflate grades, since people are less likely to question unrealistically high graduation rates

3. 1 and 2 combining in the worst case to uncrease the number of incompetent workers across technical industries

We've had decades of this sort "you can do anything if you work hard" propaganda in the west now and I fear that in addition to reducing competence across the board, it reduces the average person's ability to recognize competence, since the default assumption is that we are all endowed with the same potential, something fundamentally incompatible with human nature.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#17

Post by xigency »

Admittedly, I only skimmed this. But within the space of video games, I’m not sure Overwatch is a stunning example since it’s generally a casual game.

I’ve been playing various iterations of Counter-Strike and StarCraft for decades. Sometimes with deliberate practice, including reading strategies, playing custom maps to practice certain skills, and watching series aimed at improving level of play. And despite the hundreds of hours invested I don’t believe I’ve ever cracked the top 50% in any leaderboard rankings.

Anyone in the top 5% is definitely that good, executing complex strategies with extreme precision.

There are lots of areas in life that are highly competitive — where being the best takes raw talent, a huge time investment, and a bit of luck. I wouldn’t try to diminish that.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#18

Post by lostdog »

rp3 wrote: post #10

More interesting is that reaching the 99.99th percentile is very difficult, and yet completely unremarkable. I love David Foster Wallace’s essay on this subject: “ Tennis Player Michael Joyce's Professional Artistry as a Paradigm of Certain Stuff about Choice, Freedom, Discipline, Joy, Grotesquerie, and Human Completeness.” He follows a top 200 and is impressed by how absolutely amazing he is at tennis, but ultimatel…

It's important to choose the right thing to be in the top 0.01 percent of.

Being the 200th best bobsledder probably sucks. Being in the top 200 lawyers is probably pretty awesome.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#19

Post by temp8964 »

xigency wrote: post #17

Admittedly, I only skimmed this. But within the space of video games, I’m not sure Overwatch is a stunning example since it’s generally a casual game. I’ve been playing various iterations of Counter-Strike and StarCraft for decades. Sometimes with deliberate practice, including reading strategies, playing custom maps to practice certain skills, and watching series aimed at improving level of play. And despite the hun…

Top 5% of leaderboard may equal to 99.99% of participants.
Post reply on HN