Live data from Hacker News

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

danluu.com

51–60 of 161 posts

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

#51
> Despite all of the caveats above, my belief is that it's easier to become relatively good at real life activities relative to games or sports because there's so little delibrate practice put into most real life activities.

> You're probably 99%-ile, but someone with no talent who's put in the time to practice the basics is going to have a serve that you can't return

I have a soft spot for this kind of insight because it is supposed to be inspiring and I know I should take it in that spirit, but one thing that's always bothered me is the contradictory assertions that on the one hand, almost no one deliberately practices, but on the other hand, this makes it "easier". How can both assertions be true? Any sensible definition of difficulty has to consider how many people succeed at it. If very few people succeed at a task in practice, it is a difficult task no matter how "easy" it looks in theory.

I've come to see passion & motivation as indistinguishable from "talent". Having the passion & motivation to put in the effort is part of one's "talent" and realistically is not that easy to change. Everyone knows that to write well, you need to practice writing a lot. Scott Alexander notes in his Parable of the Talents [1] that he never needed to really muster up the energy to practice writing a lot:

> I know people who want to get good at writing, and make a mighty resolution to write two hundred words a day every day, and then after the first week they find it’s too annoying and give up. These people think I’m amazing, and why shouldn’t they? I’ve written a few hundred to a few thousand words pretty much every day for the past ten years. But as I’ve said before, this has taken exactly zero willpower.

I've found this to be true in a lot of walks in life. While there are certainly people with genius intellect/ability, most of the "talented" people I meet aren't of that kind, they are just effortlessly more motivated or passionate about something than I am. For example, they often started programming when they were 10 or something and spent most of their childhood choosing to do little side projects instead of the normal variety of childhood time wasters.

I think this essay's (95%-ile is not that good) thesis is roughly this: to be good at something, you just need to care a little, because most people don't care at all. Just need to care a little, that doesn't sound so hard, right? All I want to say is yes, in my experience caring even a little is so, so hard. There's a reason why most people don't care at all and that reason is probably not "you're better and more special than most people as a reader of this essay".

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-tal...

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

#52
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious what steps you took to get the most out of your team when some teammates aren't intrinsically motivated? Did you build a sort of incentive structure?

Reading the comment carefully, they seem to suggest a heavy use of culling. But I'd also be interested in what other steps work and don't work.

Hate to sound trite, but it often is the culture. If people feel siloed it's really easy to fall into not caring very much if you're not intrinsically motivated to succeed. However, on a closely knit team, where you put in the effort to get them included and owning things and be supported by the rest of the team in it, many start performing better (even if that starts by just asking for help earlier) simply because they don't want to let the team down. Not always, perhaps, but I'm not convinced that "poor employees" are innately reflective of the individual, so much as the individual + environment. Certainly, I personally have been in environments where I was a rockstar...and environments where I mentally checked very quickly (and sought to leave as such). And the former were the higher output environments, I might add; it wasn't just me being "out of my depth" in terms of skills or similar, but rather me not doing well when I was set up without any real empowerment or support structure and still expected to at least put on a show of trying.

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

#53
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading the comment carefully, they seem to suggest a heavy use of culling. But I'd also be interested in what other steps work and don't work.

Hate to sound trite, but it often is the culture. If people feel siloed it's really easy to fall into not caring very much if you're not intrinsically motivated to succeed. However, on a closely knit team, where you put in the effort to get them included and owning things and be supported by the rest of the team in it, many start performing better (even if that starts by just asking for help earlier) simply because t…

I agree about culture being a big part. Though no clue how you can improve that in your team as a manager?

I worked for a company where my team was fine, and individual people from other teams seemed perfectly smart and capable when talking to them, but looking at their team's output, they might as well have been idiots. I image for many of them, if they had worked at a more functional organization like Google, they would have done good work. (Even if not to the standards that Google has. But certainly better than at their then current employer.)

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

#54
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…

>Anyone in the top 5% is definitely that good

1. Overwatch, the competitive ladder, is not a casual game. Everything you mentioned for CS, happens in Overwatch too; it's a esport that had millions invested.

2. The top 5% of CSGO ranked is Legendary Eagle. There is a world of difference between Legendary Eagle and Global Elite (top .75%). And even between those 2 ranks, there are two other ranks. The top 5% isn't that good; and Global Elite itself is still a step below actual pros.

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

#55
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

People state a goal, but that's not a goal - that's an aspiration. The person doing the above "time wasting" is just setting the actual goal of "relax" and "hedonism", which tbh, is completely fine. What they say their goals are is irrelevant.

Not very many people actually work towards the goal they say they want to achieve. Those who do are quite likely to achieve it.

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

#56
post #47

>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 otherw…

Your observation is perfectly compatible with the notion you quoted from the article. It's just that the 95%-ile photography major or art major etc is not gonna make money from photography or art. Nobody buys the records of a 95%-ile musician either. (Though you can probably teach music at that skill level and earn a living.) In comparison, a 95%-ile engineer can expect to make a decent living from engineering. > I t…

the 95%-ile is irrelevant - it's more the sector that matters. a 5%-ile doctor is still going to be able to do the work of a doctor.

The reason photography or art/music require a 99%-ile is because these sectors require popularity, and the quality is subjective. Only the most popular pieces make any money - the rest are passion projects by its creators.

Engineering sectors don't need it - there's an objective standard to which your work can be graded, and as long as you pass that grade, your work is valuable to someone (who's gonna be paying you for it).

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

#57
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…

I played StarCraft 2 (SC2). I reached Master 3, and my MMR at the time was top 3% globally.

I wouldn't say I was that good. My foundational skills were decent, but not amazing and I did poorly against cheese or in extreme late-game situations. My micro in large scale battles also sucked.

A lot of people in the community would say that Master is where the game starts, and in some ways that's very true.

This:

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

Is more like GM in SC2. In Master players can usually execute 90-95% perfectly if left alone, but that quickly falls apart if you have to multitask. Probably closer to 70-80% at best in real games, if that.

Also, almost everyone is copying strategies not doing anything particularly complicated. It's hard enough to just play the damn game with a simple strategy, no point in making it harder.

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

#58
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…

> Anyone in the top 5% is definitely that good 1. Overwatch, the competitive ladder, is not a casual game. Everything you mentioned for CS, happens in Overwatch too; it's a esport that had millions invested. 2. The top 5% of CSGO ranked is Legendary Eagle . There is a world of difference between Legendary Eagle and Global Elite (top .75%). And even between those 2 ranks, there are two other ranks . The top 5% isn't t…

I don't think it's a matter of not being good, just that others are that much better. It might sound similar, but it's not. You're still better than hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people.

It's like being a tech worker who earns $400k a year and saying "I don't earn that much, there's people who do what I do clearing seven figures a year, and others who were able to retire in their early 30s and don't even have to work anymore because they became so wealthy from work." Sure, it's not a lot of money compared to those people, but it is when compared to the vast majority of wage earners in any region in the world.

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

#59
post #15
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.

I'm not convinced anyone can just work at it and get to top 95%, or even top 75%, or even top 50% at any activity. There is a ton of selecting going on that keeps people who do not have some amount of talent from even attempting to get close. I've played a decent amount of first person shooters and RTS games and I am decent but I have friends who play less and are more talented than me. Given similar practice regimens and training/feedback, I'm pretty sure they would always get higher than me in the rankings. All that to say, I don't think that simply anyone who works at it can get to the top 95% in any random activity.

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

#60
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…

> Anyone in the top 5% is definitely that good 1. Overwatch, the competitive ladder, is not a casual game. Everything you mentioned for CS, happens in Overwatch too; it's a esport that had millions invested. 2. The top 5% of CSGO ranked is Legendary Eagle . There is a world of difference between Legendary Eagle and Global Elite (top .75%). And even between those 2 ranks, there are two other ranks . The top 5% isn't t…

At least a few years ago when I was still following the CS:GO scene a lot of pros weren't Global Elite. It takes a different skillset to be able to dominate pubs and to be able to work well in a professional CS team.
Post reply on HN