95th percentile isn't that hard to reach • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by euix » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:15 PM UTC

cdoxsey wrote: post #12

On the flip side. Sometimes you're just not that good at stuff despite your best efforts. In college I really struggled with math. Which was a challenge because computer science has you take a lot of math classes. In my calculus class I studied so hard for the final. Did every problem in the book. And I still just got a B in the class. At the same time my programming classes were really easy. I didn't study at all an…

This is true but there is also a time dimension to it. I was similar in undergrad, no matter how hard I tried I never really got passed A- while the class genius would ace everything. But as a I got older and I kept studying I began to close the gap with the "market leader". The star burns twice as bright burns half as long.

Sometimes it's not about how well you do at the current point in time, but how you navigate changes in the external environment. Skills and people are always in flux.

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

#22

Post by injb » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #16

cdoxsey wrote: post #12

On the flip side. Sometimes you're just not that good at stuff despite your best efforts. In college I really struggled with math. Which was a challenge because computer science has you take a lot of math classes. In my calculus class I studied so hard for the final. Did every problem in the book. And I still just got a B in the class. At the same time my programming classes were really easy. I didn't study at all an…

Comparing you to some geniuses in the field isn't gonna help. Sure Mozart was better that Salieri, but there is just one Mozart. Companies are always talking about how they just take the best, but in the end they have to settle with what the market gives them.

I don't know why this was downvoted, but you're right. Geniuses of that level are rare and extremely lucky. It's like lamenting that you'll never be financially independent because you didn't win the Megamillions lottery. Only a tiny minority of people have that kind of luck and no one has any control over it.

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

#23

Post by bretpiatt » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

This entirely depends on the population you sample from and the competition level of the activity.

Looking at high school football in the United States, the top ~5% get a scholarship to play in college[1].

The author's example of Overwatch is one where very few people playing have joined paid leagues, hold regular practices, have paid coaching staff, have training facilities, etc. versus kids playing football.

1: http://scholarshipstats.com/football.html

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

#24

Post by blattimwind » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

cdoxsey wrote: post #12

On the flip side. Sometimes you're just not that good at stuff despite your best efforts. In college I really struggled with math. Which was a challenge because computer science has you take a lot of math classes. In my calculus class I studied so hard for the final. Did every problem in the book. And I still just got a B in the class. At the same time my programming classes were really easy. I didn't study at all an…

> Salieri is a tragic figure though - his response is one of contempt and hostility to the injustice of his life. But he's missed the point.

This is a gross falsehood spread after Salieri's death.

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

#25

Post by mynegation » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:23 PM UTC

It might be a useful approximation but I think some other very important factors are churn, compounding, and natural ability. By churn I mean: take Overwatch. Sure there are people who stay with the game for a long time but many many players play for some time and drop off as they move on to different games or other things in life. In a high churn environment just staying for a long time gives you advantage by practicing, almost automatically. On the other hand, it is much harder to do in things that people practice for decades, like making money or being a doctor.

By compounding I mean that having some amount of something makes it easier to obtain more of it. Money and capital in general is the prime example of it. Fame maybe a subtler example but explain a lot of boom or bust success in industries like acting or pop music. Outside of your own motivation you don’t get much compounding from Overwatch skill.

Natural ability also plays a role in certain occupations. Being “mere” 6 ft tall requires an insane amount of work and dedication to make it in NBA (go Kyle Lowry), and anything under that is basically zero chance. Eye-hand coordination and explosive velocity in baseball. Being big in American football or handsome in acting etc.

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

#26

Post by jvanderbot » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:23 PM UTC

pingyong wrote: post #18

The distinction between "people who participate" and "people who practice" is basically impossible to make, even just in video games . Even the example he gave didn't really work: He says that the top 30% of players in Overwatch can reasonable be expected to want to win. Which I agree with (it's probably an underestimation) - but does this mean that the bottom 70% only "participate"? Because that would mean to get in…

I read it differently. My takeaway (and I think he says as much in the article) was, by being bad among those who practice, you can be 95%ile among those who participate.

"I'm also not referring to 95%-ile among people who practice regularly. The "one weird trick" is that, for a lot of activities, being something like 10%-ile among people who practice can make you something like 90%-ile or 99%-ile among people who participate." In this case, "participate" should include casuals, and "practice" should not. Thats not clear in TFA.

I have personally found this to be true in most arenas, esp casual adult sports or music or hobbies like drawing. At one time some in my gym (wrongly) thought I was a great boxer, but sure enough I was abysmal in competitions but stellar compared to gym goers. Among practicing boxers I was mediocre to bad, among participating non-fighters, I appeared much better. And after a very small amount of actual participation, all those gym goers were downright intimidating to non-participants / nonfighters. This is why I tell people to try out self defense classes. A little practice elevates you above 90% of those who might do violence against you in the world.

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

#27

Post by Mary-Jane » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

lmilcin wrote: post #10

AllegedAlec wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are stuck being mediocre to good (but not best) players because they dug themselves in their own holes Also: they fall into a pit where their current behaviour works at the skill level that they are at, but is detrimental when that behaviour is performed at a higher skill level.

That is true. One way this happens is when somebody tries to progress very quickly, emulating best players, without putting time to understand the basic mechanics of the game. A good player will be able to adapt their gameplay because they can more or less predict what will happen when they alter the gameplay and/or they can evaluate how their change influenced the result. A stuck player who skipped basic training ma…

A similar analogy: talented musicians who can only read music but completely lack the ability to improvise.

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

#28

Post by m3kw9 » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

Yeah where you sample matters. In over watch you sample everyone from casuals, first timers etc to pro competitors. It if you just sample all pro competitors it will be much harder to reach 95%.

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

#29

Post by dyeje » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:24 PM UTC

Was really pleasantly surprised to see this included a section about Overwatch. I have watched my Overwatch gameplaye to improve, but never my programming. I'll give it a try.

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

#30

Post by tyingq » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #20

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…

Perhaps the 95%-ile is actually good when it is something that almost everyone has to do. Everyone in school is practicing at least a bit on reading comprehension, and the SAT is across lots of schools, if you are the in 95%-ile of millions of people it might be more impressive than being in the 95%-ile of tens of thousands of people.

That seems like a good observation...sample size matters. Being one the best players in my over-40, non-contact, recreational hockey league is very, very, not meaningful. I could move up a bracket and be an ignored bench warmer. Or move down and be a superstar.

Seems recognized by everyone playing though. We focus little on who has talent. It's more about cool multi-player strategy, and funny stuff. Terrible players that "luck or effort" into something magnificent is way more exciting and celebrated than a known good player scoring/defending. "Goalie didn't show up and here's a dumbass in pads" are the best games, even if it's your goalkeeper and you get destroyed on the scoreboard.