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

61–70 of 191 posts

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

#61

Post by wharvle »

rglullis wrote: post #12

The argument from Scott Adams is about generalists being better than specialists is in regarding becoming useful/resourceful enough to the point people will pay you for your skillset. No one gets outstanding recognition for being in the 95%-ile.

I took it as suggesting 75% is aiming way too low for these kinds of even-people-doing-it-don’t-deliberately-practice activities, even if you’re aiming to be a generalist. Rather, that being 95%ile (among practitioners) or better in several valuable skills/areas-of-knowledge isn’t actually an unreasonable goal.

I remember a piece on Donald Glover where Glover described discovering a “superpower” that went on to define his life when, after getting his ass handed to him in a casual basketball match as a kid, he simply practiced shots for a few hours that evening, and the next match went very differently. He doesn’t come out and say precisely what the superpower was but I took it as “literally try at all, and put the tiniest amount of thought/focus into how you try”. The implicit observation is similar: going up tens of percentile in skill-level isn’t that hard, because most people don’t thoughtfully try or put in any practice time at all, even those engaging in the activity. Won’t make you elite, but start applying that goal-oriented-practice attitude to several of the kinds of fuzzy activities mentioned in this piece, and you might really get somewhere.

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

#62

Post by loeg »

303uru wrote: post #27

I'm a pretty consistent top 10 amateur cyclist in Colorado. Some really get wrapped up in it and let it get to their head. The reality though is most people don't ride or race, of those who even race many are there just to participate, now of those who are there to race my percentile has dropped. On the flip side, the truly great riders are overseas and even of them there are just a handful of riders anyone will ever…

Top 10, or top 10%?

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

#63

Post by nlawalker »

dwaltrip wrote: post #38

> Some reasons we might expect this to happen are: 1. People don't want to win or don't care about winning 2. People understand their mistakes but haven't put in enough time to fix them 3. People are untalented 4. People don't understand how to spot their mistakes and fix them —— There is another very common reason. It is often emotionally difficult to acknowledge that you’re making simple mistakes that could be fixe…

I was going to add "People want to be winners without trying because people who win without trying are cool, and tryhards are not cool."

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

#64

Post by voxl »

This is the kind of claim that needs actual evidence, otherwise it's just a dumb feel-good sentiment about how you _could_ be 2000 ELO on lichess if you cared.

I tend to agree that with enough time and _appropriate_ training anyone can become quite competent at anything, but this is a significantly different claim than thinking you can be in the 95th percentile of persons who are engaged in the activity. It becomes even worse when you realize that technical activities (such as programming) where there are cash incentives are a lot different than recreational activities where the only incentive is to have fun. There is an incentive to _not_ improve at a recreational activity and outpace your friends.

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

#65

Post by jpc0 »

CSMastermind wrote: post #46
madamelic wrote: post #26

I would have to agree about 95th percentile being not that difficult. A streamer that I occasionally tune into (Asmongold) says that if you are seeking information outside of the game such as watching streams of the game, that makes you a top 10% player automatically. Most people are passive consumers and participants in their activities and that isn't exclusive to the individual. I am a passive consumer & participan…

> Most software engineers aren't listening to podcasts about software engineering. If you are religiously listening to and learning from podcasts, that makes you more suspectible to being a higher percentile performer in software engineering. Does it though? I don't feel like listening to podcasts is a particularly good way to build software engineering skill. The same way listening to a podcast about art doesn't mak…

If I listen to a podcast on let's say, algorithms.

They discuss an algorithm I'm currently working on and some research papers on said algorithms.

If I didn't know about those research papers I now have more knowledge than I had before and can improve more than someone who didn't have said knowledge.

Replace algorithm with framework, design pattern, type of software etc...

It alone doesn't make you better just like reading a boom wouldn't make you a better software developer. Actually absorbing the information and using it to improve would.

The same can be said for every single one of the fields you mentioned.

Sharing knowledge using spoken word is no different from sharing knowledge using any other media.

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

#66

Post by ch4s3 »

I don't think I agree with this at all. I can see how you would have this impression with something like a video game or I guess public speaking where maybe a lot of people do it un-seriously and you can be better than most with some intentional effort. It's weird to choose a super mass market game like Overwatch to make that point though, if you were in the 95th percentile of Starcraft players, that would truly be something, since the skill ceiling is MILES high.

For anything with a physical component I think this whole thing falls apart completely. For something like weightlifting the 95% percentile for men is around 160kg or ~352lbs. Going from sedentary to that lift could take years of effort. Musical performance is similarly something where the effort to do anything at all is quite large.

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

#67

Post by gocartStatue »

namaria wrote: post #47
madamelic wrote: post #26

I would have to agree about 95th percentile being not that difficult. A streamer that I occasionally tune into (Asmongold) says that if you are seeking information outside of the game such as watching streams of the game, that makes you a top 10% player automatically. Most people are passive consumers and participants in their activities and that isn't exclusive to the individual. I am a passive consumer & participan…

> A streamer (...) says that if you are (...) watching streams of the game, that makes you a top 10% player automatically. Sounds like pandering to the audience. Performing better then 90% of people makes you a top 10% player. Self soothing about how what you like to do in your spare time makes you better then others is not making you any favors. It doesn't matter how much effort you put into being effective. In fact…

I got to top 10% of Trackmania players (extremely competitive) just by watching Wirtual’s streams. Couple of advices (and learning to implement them) were worth more than hours of (bad) grinding.

And he is „only” in like 99,9th percentile in time trials, not even competing in top tournaments.

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

#68

Post by norir »

I feel like implicit in this framing is the idea that one's sense of value is linked to where one measures up in some arbitrary task. Should I feel worse about myself if I'm only in the 95th percentile for some activity I enjoy rather than the 99th? Most things worth doing are more enjoyable the more skilled you are at them, but of course our lives are finite and we have to make choices that might limit our development of any skill. But the more I am worried about where I measure up, the less I am enjoying the thing for what it is. As the saying goes, comparison is the thief of joy.

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

#69

Post by antisthenes »

95%-ile isn't that good.*

* The caveat of course being that you dedicate all your available waking hours (not occupied with life-sustaining activities) to training and deliberately practicing a single particular skill/game and also trying to do your best every single time, which is incredibly mentally taxing. It's even more mentally taxing as you get older, since your fluid intelligence diminishes.

Also, another author's mistake is diminishing the role of talent. While we know that with deliberate practice most people can achieve a 95%-ile, the real advantage of talent is how fast you can get there. Because if it takes you half as long to get there, you are able to start reaping the rewards earlier, and getting first-mover advantage.

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

#70

Post by strstr »

norir wrote: post #68

I feel like implicit in this framing is the idea that one's sense of value is linked to where one measures up in some arbitrary task. Should I feel worse about myself if I'm only in the 95th percentile for some activity I enjoy rather than the 99th? Most things worth doing are more enjoyable the more skilled you are at them, but of course our lives are finite and we have to make choices that might limit our developme…

The framing is a lot narrower, and pretty clear if you’ve ever played overwatch. In that context a lot of people claim they want to get better, but don’t even grab for the lowest hanging fruit.
Post reply on HN