4 ms·

I think the author is writing under the assumption that there are diminishing returns as one gets better at a skill, when really the opposite is true. The numbe

spectrum1234 11y ago
But the assumption here is there are many many things to learn. What you are saying is mastery of a skill builds off itself, of course that's true. But learning something completely new is still going to have a MUCH higher return. And this is more true the MORE uncorrelated the things you are trying to learn.
mechanician 11y ago
I agree with the above, but exact number of hours aside, do you think there could be some validity to the article, akin to a Pareto principle?
kafkaesq 11y ago
I think the author is writing under the assumption that there are diminishing returns as one gets better at a skill, when really the opposite is true. I didn't get that as the main take-away. Rather, simply, that it's much easier to bootstrap oneself out of a state of utter helplessness in the face of some totally unfamiliar skill area (cooking, music, foreign languages... and yes, even programming) than people commonly think. And into that zone where, while far from an expert, you're at least getting traction, and past that feeling of "I'm just not cut out for this". To a place where one could reasonably say, "Yeah, I could get a lot better at this, if I spent more time on it." It's an extremely valuable life lesson, I've found. And no, I'm not saying you should go out and hire programmers with 100 hours of self-taught experience. Nor is the article.
ethikal 11y ago
I think the author is writing under the assumption that there are diminishing returns as one gets better at a skill, when really the opposite is true. The number of topics you can absorb per unit term obviously increases with your pre-existing competency with the skill. There absolutely are diminishing returns in mastering a skill. For example, if you spend a year learning how to play the piano, you might be at a level where you can play some pop songs and impress your friends. To be at the level where you can play some Rachmaninov will probably require an order of magnitude more time (10 years), even though you know all the basics. In the process of mastery from years 1-10, you won't unlock an order of magnitude more songs that you can play as a result. In fact, each year that you march towards mastery, there'll probably be less and less songs that you'll be unlocking as a result. Your returns are diminishing. This isn't to say that you shouldn't seek to master something (or several things), only that if you are trying to accomplish something which requires mastery of a lot of skills (like starting a company) you should eliminate blind spots by learning a bit about what you don't know. Even reading a book about sales is better than not knowing anything at all about it. Even if you have a sales expert on your team, it helps to empathize and know what they'll be thinking about as you build the product (if you are an engineer). Being an entrepreneur is all about being well-rounded.
lpolovets 11y ago
(I'm the author.) I don't disagree that the amount you learn and how well you understand it might accelerate as you advance along the learning curve. My post was more about the "practical" side of knowledge: often knowing 1% or 5% of what an expert knows gets you 30% or 50% or 80% of the practical benefit. The specific numbers don't matter -- only the order of magnitude difference between time invested and value extracted. As an extreme hypothetical, consider three sales people, one with 500 hours of experience, one with 5k hours, and one with 50k hours. Each order of magnitude in experience might represent an order of magnitude more knowledge/learnings. Or maybe even more! But I doubt that the person with 50k hours of experience closes 10x more sales than the "5000 hour" salesperson, and 100x more than the "500 hour" sales person. It's probably more like 2x and 1.1x, respectively. (Or maybe 5x and 3x... but nowhere near 100x/10x.) You're right about my 30% estimate though -- it's just an estimate, and quite possibly a sign of naivete/overconfidence. But I do think knowing some of the basics -- even if the knowledge is just through books and shadowing a few sales calls -- would put me ahead of the average person who never learned anything about sales.
- angersock 11y ago
  I'll call bullshit on that, with all respect. Your 500 hour salesperson has been on the job a bit over 12 work weeks. Your 50000 hour salesperson has been on the job 24 years. I'll wager that the latter salesperson not only closes more deals but more lucrative ones as well. In your article, you compare the rank novice with somebody with a 100 hours of experience--this is fine. Extending that logic to comparisons between folks already in the field I don't think works.
  - lpolovets 11y ago
    The person with 20 years of work experience obviously closes more deals than someone with 3 months of experience. But I think my original point stands. To put it simply/mathematically: if you are able to close 10% of your sales calls, then no matter how much you learn, you will never be able to improve than stat by more than 10X in practice. There is no way to close more than 100% of your calls. So there are strong diminishing returns in that respect.

spectrum1234 11y ago

But the assumption here is there are many many things to learn. What you are saying is mastery of a skill builds off itself, of course that's true. But learning something completely new is still going to have a MUCH higher return. And this is more true the MORE uncorrelated the things you are trying to learn.

mechanician 11y ago

I agree with the above, but exact number of hours aside, do you think there could be some validity to the article, akin to a Pareto principle?

kafkaesq 11y ago

I think the author is writing under the assumption that there are diminishing returns as one gets better at a skill, when really the opposite is true. I didn't get that as the main take-away. Rather, simply, that it's much easier to bootstrap oneself out of a state of utter helplessness in the face of some totally unfamiliar skill area (cooking, music, foreign languages... and yes, even programming) than people commonly think. And into that zone where, while far from an expert, you're at least getting traction, and past that feeling of "I'm just not cut out for this". To a place where one could reasonably say, "Yeah, I could get a lot better at this, if I spent more time on it." It's an extremely valuable life lesson, I've found. And no, I'm not saying you should go out and hire programmers with 100 hours of self-taught experience. Nor is the article.

ethikal 11y ago

I think the author is writing under the assumption that there are diminishing returns as one gets better at a skill, when really the opposite is true. The number of topics you can absorb per unit term obviously increases with your pre-existing competency with the skill. There absolutely are diminishing returns in mastering a skill. For example, if you spend a year learning how to play the piano, you might be at a level where you can play some pop songs and impress your friends. To be at the level where you can play some Rachmaninov will probably require an order of magnitude more time (10 years), even though you know all the basics. In the process of mastery from years 1-10, you won't unlock an order of magnitude more songs that you can play as a result. In fact, each year that you march towards mastery, there'll probably be less and less songs that you'll be unlocking as a result. Your returns are diminishing. This isn't to say that you shouldn't seek to master something (or several things), only that if you are trying to accomplish something which requires mastery of a lot of skills (like starting a company) you should eliminate blind spots by learning a bit about what you don't know. Even reading a book about sales is better than not knowing anything at all about it. Even if you have a sales expert on your team, it helps to empathize and know what they'll be thinking about as you build the product (if you are an engineer). Being an entrepreneur is all about being well-rounded.

lpolovets 11y ago

(I'm the author.) I don't disagree that the amount you learn and how well you understand it might accelerate as you advance along the learning curve. My post was more about the "practical" side of knowledge: often knowing 1% or 5% of what an expert knows gets you 30% or 50% or 80% of the practical benefit. The specific numbers don't matter -- only the order of magnitude difference between time invested and value extracted. As an extreme hypothetical, consider three sales people, one with 500 hours of experience, one with 5k hours, and one with 50k hours. Each order of magnitude in experience might represent an order of magnitude more knowledge/learnings. Or maybe even more! But I doubt that the person with 50k hours of experience closes 10x more sales than the "5000 hour" salesperson, and 100x more than the "500 hour" sales person. It's probably more like 2x and 1.1x, respectively. (Or maybe 5x and 3x... but nowhere near 100x/10x.) You're right about my 30% estimate though -- it's just an estimate, and quite possibly a sign of naivete/overconfidence. But I do think knowing some of the basics -- even if the knowledge is just through books and shadowing a few sales calls -- would put me ahead of the average person who never learned anything about sales.

angersock 11y ago
I'll call bullshit on that, with all respect. Your 500 hour salesperson has been on the job a bit over 12 work weeks. Your 50000 hour salesperson has been on the job 24 years. I'll wager that the latter salesperson not only closes more deals but more lucrative ones as well. In your article, you compare the rank novice with somebody with a 100 hours of experience--this is fine. Extending that logic to comparisons between folks already in the field I don't think works.
- lpolovets 11y ago
  The person with 20 years of work experience obviously closes more deals than someone with 3 months of experience. But I think my original point stands. To put it simply/mathematically: if you are able to close 10% of your sales calls, then no matter how much you learn, you will never be able to improve than stat by more than 10X in practice. There is no way to close more than 100% of your calls. So there are strong diminishing returns in that respect.