3 ms·
> Rather, it should be... "people who lifted a thing from the ground at any point of their lives"? Not that impressive. And, sure, just converting yourself from
by bonoboTP 7y ago
> Rather, it should be... "people who lifted a thing from the ground at any point of their lives"? Not that impressive. And, sure, just converting yourself from "people who lifted a thing" to "people [of the same sex] who actually go to the gym regularly and deadlift" will get you into 95%-ile of the first, broader domain within a couple of years, because people who regularly deadlift would already be less than 5% of the population.
I deeply disagree. Taking the whole population is the only sensible interpretation. Answering like "duh, you actually go to the gym, of course you're better than 95% of guys on Earth, that's so unimpressive, anyone could do it if they did it." entirely misses the point. The point is precisely that you actually did it, while 95% did NOT do it and now you are ahead of 95% of people in this thing.
If you always had to be 95th percentile in your current peer group (general couch potatoes, high school championship participants, world championship participants, Olympians, Olympic medalists, Olympic champions, Olympic champions twice in a row), then the 95 just doesn't mean anything. Then you just have to be the single very best according to your logic.
The point is not about "impressive" or not. It's about 95th percentile or not.
- timerol 7y ago> Note that when I say 95%-ile, I mean 95%-ile among people who participate, not all people (for many activities, just doing it at all makes you 99%-ile or above across all people). This is the start of the second paragraph of the article, so it sounds like you disagree with the premise of what we're discussing
- bonoboTP 7y agoDepends on how interpret participation. Unless someone participates, you cannot know their score, so I guess a bare minimum participation is indeed required to be able to make comparisons. Theoretically there may be a guy who can already deadlift more than you, he just never tried.
- Gene_Parmesan 7y agoHe gave another example which I think is more illustrative -- Overwatch. There it's clear he's referring to 95%ile of people who play Overwatch, not any video games, and even less so everyone on Earth. My guess is, though, that he would include the people who play the casual modes in Overwatch, not just the competitive modes.
- fyp 7y ago> If you always had to be 95th percentile in your current peer group (general couch potatoes, high school championship participants, world championship participants, Olympians, Olympic medalists, Olympic champions, Olympic champions twice in a row), then the 95 just doesn't mean anything. Then you just have to be the single very best according to your logic. This is the typical experience for the ivy league types common on HN though. They had to beat their way into the 95% of their zone school, then 95% of their magnet high school, then 95% of their elite college's graduating class, then 95% of their big N corporate ladder, etc. Despite the filtering at every step of the way, the curve is always bellshaped! And it feels like shit if you find yourself on the left side of that curve among your peers. But I guess it's healthier to think along the lines of: "What do you call a medical student who finished last in their class? Doctor."
- bonoboTP 7y agoThe typical HNer passed 95 in all those things you listed? I think you're vastly overestimating the readers of this forum. Just by the numbers, you can't have so many people who aced through top-5% in Ivy League schools and darted through the corporate ladder in a top SV company. Not to mention that not everyone is American here.
- openfuture 7y agoWe probably managed to be the 5% a few times but then we came here to settle down as the 95% in our current bracket.