4 ms·

> When you get into the top ranks of any profession, there are so many people who are so good that the difference in skill level is almost imperceptible. I don

> When you get into the top ranks of any profession, there are so many people who are so good that the difference in skill level is almost imperceptible. I don't think data support this. Talent efficacy is more of a power law distribution than a sigmoid. Simone Biles is not a very marginally better gymnast. Elon Musk is not a modestly more enthusiastic car company CEO. Michael Phelps was not slightly better at swimming. The differences between the best and the almost-best at extremely high levels of skill is much larger than the differences between modestly talented individuals.

hkarthik 5y ago
I think it's better to segment in terms of percentiles. Biles, Musk, and Phelps are in the top 1% of their professions. They stand out a lot. The folks in the top 10% are often way more comparable and differences between them are negligible. It takes something special/extra to stand out in this crowd, and for many of them, it's not about working any harder to make it to the top 1%. It takes a lot of luck/opportunity, and extraordinary natural talent to become part of this 1% group. Which is why their success is not easy to replicate. And it can come from anywhere. None of these people had parents or families in the top 10% of the same profession.
- yupper32 5y ago
  Just to be clear, calling Biles and Phelps (during his time) the top 1% of their field is the understatement of the century.
  - MaximumYComb 5y ago
    Top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% is still understating it
    - yupper32 5y ago
      In the case of Biles, even saying "The top 1" might be understating it.
luffapi 5y ago
Elon Musk is the poster boy for being mediocre but being in the right place at the right time, then leveraging power law gains after that. Enthusiasm is not a skill.
- dominotw 5y ago
  > right place at the right time Curious. What was this time and place.
  - luffapi 5y ago
    Born to rich parents, and the right age and location to cash in on the original dot com boom.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Getting rich off paypal doesn't directly translate into the success of SpaceX and Tesla. Both of those were massive gambles with a lot of minute details that needed to go right.
      - luffapi 5y ago
        Yes it does. Do you think non-rich people get billions of dollars of government handouts?
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        Government handouts do not guarantee successful aerospace and automotive startups. Those industries are notoriously hard to break into. Any business that had gotten to that point in those industries would have gotten those same subsidies.
        moralestapia 5y ago
        And it's even harder without the handouts, so, your point is moot.
bjornsing 5y ago
Agree. This is a property of the normal distribution, and can be seen in a lot of places. You can see it e.g. in this list of tallest people: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people
flukus 5y ago
> Michael Phelps was not slightly better at swimming. If you look at individual records he literally was just ~1% better than the previous record holder. His 200m freestyle record was 102.96, the previous record was 104.06. The whole field is people making slight improvements on previous generations. > Elon Musk is not a modestly more enthusiastic car company CEO Many attempts at electric cars were there, his happened to be at the time when battery tech had become good enough. A few decades earlier we'd look at him they same way we look at Clive Sinclair after his electric car effort, despite a previous notable contribution in the computer market.
codingwageslave 5y ago
The data shows it’s the opposite in basically every human endeavor. The greatest are far ahead of the merely great, it’s a law of the normal distribution
gizmo686 5y ago
Using Michael Phelps as an example, because his talent is extremly quantifiable. According to wikipedia, his career best 200m short course freestyle time is 1:42.78 [0]. In contrast the cobsideration time for 2019-2020 high school boys 200m freestyle is 1:51.05 (I think this is the same event, but Phelp's short and long course time are close enough that the point holds even if there is a slight difference in the event definition). In quantitative terms, the best swimmer humanity has to offer is about 7.4% better than a bunch of highschoolers. In objective terms, both in absolute time and percentage improvement an increase at skill in swimming has a much larger effect on less skilled swimmers. And this result holds true for almost all skills. Looking at world records, of the 39 world records he has set, 35 have been beaten by others. [0] Sports like swimming are designed specifically to amplify marginal differences. That is why so much effort goes into accuratly timing them: the difference in their times is marginal. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps [1] https://swimswam.com/nisca-releases-2019-20-all-america-time-standards-and-theyre-faster/ https://swimswam.com/nisca-releases-2019-20-all-america-time...

hkarthik 5y ago

I think it's better to segment in terms of percentiles. Biles, Musk, and Phelps are in the top 1% of their professions. They stand out a lot. The folks in the top 10% are often way more comparable and differences between them are negligible. It takes something special/extra to stand out in this crowd, and for many of them, it's not about working any harder to make it to the top 1%. It takes a lot of luck/opportunity, and extraordinary natural talent to become part of this 1% group. Which is why their success is not easy to replicate. And it can come from anywhere. None of these people had parents or families in the top 10% of the same profession.

yupper32 5y ago
Just to be clear, calling Biles and Phelps (during his time) the top 1% of their field is the understatement of the century.
- MaximumYComb 5y ago
  Top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% is still understating it
  - yupper32 5y ago
    In the case of Biles, even saying "The top 1" might be understating it.

luffapi 5y ago

Elon Musk is the poster boy for being mediocre but being in the right place at the right time, then leveraging power law gains after that. Enthusiasm is not a skill.

dominotw 5y ago
> right place at the right time Curious. What was this time and place.
- luffapi 5y ago
  Born to rich parents, and the right age and location to cash in on the original dot com boom.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Getting rich off paypal doesn't directly translate into the success of SpaceX and Tesla. Both of those were massive gambles with a lot of minute details that needed to go right.
    - luffapi 5y ago
      Yes it does. Do you think non-rich people get billions of dollars of government handouts?
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        Government handouts do not guarantee successful aerospace and automotive startups. Those industries are notoriously hard to break into. Any business that had gotten to that point in those industries would have gotten those same subsidies.
        moralestapia 5y ago
        And it's even harder without the handouts, so, your point is moot.

bjornsing 5y ago

Agree. This is a property of the normal distribution, and can be seen in a lot of places. You can see it e.g. in this list of tallest people: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people

flukus 5y ago

> Michael Phelps was not slightly better at swimming. If you look at individual records he literally was just ~1% better than the previous record holder. His 200m freestyle record was 102.96, the previous record was 104.06. The whole field is people making slight improvements on previous generations. > Elon Musk is not a modestly more enthusiastic car company CEO Many attempts at electric cars were there, his happened to be at the time when battery tech had become good enough. A few decades earlier we'd look at him they same way we look at Clive Sinclair after his electric car effort, despite a previous notable contribution in the computer market.

codingwageslave 5y ago

The data shows it’s the opposite in basically every human endeavor. The greatest are far ahead of the merely great, it’s a law of the normal distribution

gizmo686 5y ago

Using Michael Phelps as an example, because his talent is extremly quantifiable. According to wikipedia, his career best 200m short course freestyle time is 1:42.78 [0]. In contrast the cobsideration time for 2019-2020 high school boys 200m freestyle is 1:51.05 (I think this is the same event, but Phelp's short and long course time are close enough that the point holds even if there is a slight difference in the event definition). In quantitative terms, the best swimmer humanity has to offer is about 7.4% better than a bunch of highschoolers. In objective terms, both in absolute time and percentage improvement an increase at skill in swimming has a much larger effect on less skilled swimmers. And this result holds true for almost all skills. Looking at world records, of the 39 world records he has set, 35 have been beaten by others. [0] Sports like swimming are designed specifically to amplify marginal differences. That is why so much effort goes into accuratly timing them: the difference in their times is marginal. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps [1] https://swimswam.com/nisca-releases-2019-20-all-america-time-standards-and-theyre-faster/ https://swimswam.com/nisca-releases-2019-20-all-america-time...