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

Misidentifying talent

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 167 posts

Re: Misidentifying talent

#111

Post by eggsmediumrare »

sampo wrote: post #61

Moneyball (book 2003, movie 2011) describes how Oakland Athletes build their baseball team in 2002 based on statistical analysis of player performance. Then around 2008-2009, Houston Rockets, and Golden State Warriors (Oakland) started to apply similar analysis to basketball, and started to find the value of having quickly moving players who throw precisely, to score 3 point shots, even if these players are not as ta…

Hockey has proven somewhat stubborn. Coaches will pull the goalie earlier now, and there is more of an emphasis on skilled players rather than nasty players, but I'm not convinced the latter wouldn't have happened in the absence of analytics. There was a wave of excitement when Kyle Dubas and a few other young GMs started hyping up analytics and new stats like expected goals and possession metrics and stuff, but as far as I can tell, it hasn't had a huge impact on the game.

Re: Misidentifying talent

#112

Post by bumbledraven »

caffeine wrote: post #63
jackblemming wrote: post #23

I strongly agree with this. Every programmer who became "upper management" also happened to be 6'1"+. Shocking. Funny enough, the shorter programmers were generally much more competent from having to actually earn their place. If you have to pick a doctor or lawyer on looks alone, I recommend picking the shorter guy (or the woman!)

Let’s imagine hypothetically there is some circuit genetically encoded in every human’s brain that gives +10% probability of agreeing with someone if they are a tall male. Let’s also imagine hypothetically that in many situations, the speed and strength of consensus itself has value beyond the quality of the decision reached, so eg. quickly reaching a strong consensus on the 2nd-best solution would be better than fig…

The conclusion would also be hold if the "circuit" was cultural.

Re: Misidentifying talent

#114

Post by jkingsbery »

> A complaint I've heard from some folks who are junior is that they can't get promoted because their work doesn't fulfill promo criteria. When they ask to be allowed to do work that could get them promoted, they're told they're too junior to do that kind of work. They're generally stuck at their level until they find a manager who believes in their potential enough to give them work that could possibly result in a promo if they did a good job.

One bit of advice I've given many people I've mentored in the past is to not wait to get assigned the "promo project." It's hard for people to object with "your too junior to do that kind of work" when you've shown them a plan that's on par with what a senior engineer would provide. Sometimes, they might do that anyway, but then the problem lies not with getting the right promo project, it lies with not having a manager who will be a partner in developing your career.

Re: Misidentifying talent

#115

Post by marktangotango »

caffeine wrote: post #63
jackblemming wrote: post #23

I strongly agree with this. Every programmer who became "upper management" also happened to be 6'1"+. Shocking. Funny enough, the shorter programmers were generally much more competent from having to actually earn their place. If you have to pick a doctor or lawyer on looks alone, I recommend picking the shorter guy (or the woman!)

Let’s imagine hypothetically there is some circuit genetically encoded in every human’s brain that gives +10% probability of agreeing with someone if they are a tall male. Let’s also imagine hypothetically that in many situations, the speed and strength of consensus itself has value beyond the quality of the decision reached, so eg. quickly reaching a strong consensus on the 2nd-best solution would be better than fig…

I was pondering this recently and I wondered if ones relationship with their father as a small child impacts this effect as well. If as a kid one looked up to their father, literally, and had positive interactions, well that's some pretty deeply ingrained feedback loops there. Yes this is pop psych nonsense, but one does wonder.

Re: Misidentifying talent

#116

Post by bagacrap »

I don't know why it's taken for granted that the face of a potential pro ball player doesn't matter at all. Obviously no one thinks a strong looking nose helps one throw the ball farther. Could be that franchises are looking for popular heroes that can sell jerseys.

Re: Misidentifying talent

#117

Post by tanjtanjtanj »

ren_engineer wrote: post #95
sampo wrote: post #61

Moneyball (book 2003, movie 2011) describes how Oakland Athletes build their baseball team in 2002 based on statistical analysis of player performance. Then around 2008-2009, Houston Rockets, and Golden State Warriors (Oakland) started to apply similar analysis to basketball, and started to find the value of having quickly moving players who throw precisely, to score 3 point shots, even if these players are not as ta…

happening in American Football as well with more aggressive play calling on 4th down and in the red zone due to analytics. There are also teams using tools to calculate "game speed" vs traditional testing to help scouting be more accurate

What's crazy to me is that the more modern 4th down play-calling statistics has been known for at least two decades now; I first heard about it from my stats teacher in high school. The issue is that making the right call and it not working out would reflect more poorly on a coach than making the more traditional call and playing worse. It reminds me of the saying "No one ever got fired for buying IBM".

Re: Misidentifying talent

#118

Post by commandlinefan »

durnygbur wrote: post #70

I'm white and above the usual height limit set by ladies on dating apps. Despite this with history of grunt dev roles and no managerial roles. TIL I'm the baddie.

Same here... maybe there's some confirmation bias in these folk's observations? I see an awful lot of non-white, non-male, non-tall people in management positions whenever I look.

Re: Misidentifying talent

#119

Post by [deleted] »

jackblemming wrote: post #23

I strongly agree with this. Every programmer who became "upper management" also happened to be 6'1"+. Shocking. Funny enough, the shorter programmers were generally much more competent from having to actually earn their place. If you have to pick a doctor or lawyer on looks alone, I recommend picking the shorter guy (or the woman!)

[deleted]

Re: Misidentifying talent

#120

Post by sampo »

tanjtanjtanj wrote: post #117
ren_engineer wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

happening in American Football as well with more aggressive play calling on 4th down and in the red zone due to analytics. There are also teams using tools to calculate "game speed" vs traditional testing to help scouting be more accurate

What's crazy to me is that the more modern 4th down play-calling statistics has been known for at least two decades now; I first heard about it from my stats teacher in high school. The issue is that making the right call and it not working out would reflect more poorly on a coach than making the more traditional call and playing worse. It reminds me of the saying "No one ever got fired for buying IBM".

Young Sheldon in 2017: "Statistically always punting on 4th down makes no sense."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZffa_Z_Cxs#t=17s

Post reply on HN