4 ms·

Another thing to think about is how basically every human trait follows a normal distribution. If mean = 1x (by definition 1x should be the mean) and the std i

Another thing to think about is how basically every human trait follows a normal distribution. If mean = 1x (by definition 1x should be the mean) and the std is the maximum possible value (also 1x). Then 10x would be 10 std past the norm. This makes my numbers not arbitrary. 2x or 3x would only be 2 or 3 std past the norm. Which is reasonable (only if the std = 1x which is likely not the case and is most likely lower). If a 10xer existed, That's like saying you found a human who runs 10x faster then the mean (10mph) or you found a human 10x taller than the mean (5'10"). 10 is arbitrary but 2 or 3 is less arbitrary. Ever heard of the company 3sigma? The name represents Rarest non arbitrary anomaly from the norm. It is actually fundamentally illogical to think of human ability in terms of a multiple of the mean because no other measurable human quality follows that kind of distribution. Almost all of these measured things follow the normal distribution. You are therefore highly highly unlikely to find a 10x engineer or a -10x engineer. This applies even to things like engineering leadership. When viewed from this lens you can actually see that it's actually very unlikely for even the best leader to improve the productivity of every member of his team by even 2x. So I take that back. Likely what we are seeing is something like a 1.1x.or 1.2x increase and our minds are exaggerating the effect like an optical illusion. The concept of measuring any human trait along multiples of the mean via 1x or 2x or 3x or 10x is fundamentally unrealistic when you take a data driven viewpoint of normal distributions. Everyone on this thread is erroneously following this model and while my instincts were more tempered, to a certain extent even I'm following this erroneous model as I declared 3x to be within the realm of reality. We are all going about this all wrong (including me), the data driven conclusion is that at best you can find 2x engineers and they are freaking rare (because the actual std is nowhere near 1x). The maximum likely delta between the best engineer and worst engineer is 4z, where in this case the z represents 1/2x or an engineer half as good as the average. Likely people are anecdotally seeing this 4z delta and their mind is exaggerating the delta to 10x. From what we know of statistical reality an actual 10x is unlikely to happen at all.

The_Colonel 4y ago
> ...and the std is the maximum possible value (also 1x). Then 10x would be 10 std past the norm. Sorry, but this is a completely arbitrary definition and honestly one I've never seen so far.
- Herval_freire 4y ago
  It's not arbitrary. Theoretically the max range of the std is infinite. However because the input values are limited in range the std also becomes limited. You're thinking of it in terms of an infinite range from negative infinity to positive infinite. In terms of what we are dealing with practically things like IQ, height or engineering effectiveness are on a scale of 0 to infinite. So for IQ, or height, no one can have negative or zero height. This limit effectively limits the std. It is not arbitrary. Try it. For a distribution of integers on a range from 0 to infinite, let's say the mean is 1. The std will also have a maximum value of 1. If you add extreme data points to change std, you will also change the mean. This makes sense right? If you add say 9999999 to a distribution of numbers to keep the average the same you have to counterbalance it with a -9999999 or something like that. But however because the domain is limited from 0 to infinite you can't do that. So effectively the maximum value of the std is the mean itself assuming that the system is normally distributed.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > So for IQ, or height, no one can have negative or zero height. For height, sure, but since IQ scores are defined by the standard deviation of 15, a negative score is possible (you’d expect a single-digit number of people in the world population to have such scores.) Not sure if the typical test resolution is sufficient to distinguish that, though.
    - Herval_freire 4y ago
      Negative IQ? The test should be the definition of IQ, the statistical distribution doesn't define IQ. If the statistical distribution is saying you can have negative IQ but it is fundamentally impossible to score that amount on the test then the statistical model is the one that doesn't make any sense. In other words the statistical model is not an entirely accurate model of the IQ test. Which to me is what IQ is. If negative IQ exists what does it even mean? These numbers have to have some physical actualization. It doesn't make sense for IQ to be some measure of some factor that's impossible to ever actualize. That's just my interpretation though. Regardless of this though, it is highly highly unlikely for engineering productivity to go that deep into the negative. It's also fundamentally impossible to have infinite productivity too. The real domain is for sure some fixed range of numbers which makes the std for sure limited by the distance of the mean to the first number in the range. By this logic, A 10x engineer is analogous to someone with 1000 IQ or 58 feet in height. We have intuitions about this that is inline with the statistical outcomes I outlined above... and it makes sense to apply these intuitions to the concept of 10x engineers.

The_Colonel 4y ago

> ...and the std is the maximum possible value (also 1x). Then 10x would be 10 std past the norm. Sorry, but this is a completely arbitrary definition and honestly one I've never seen so far.

Herval_freire 4y ago
It's not arbitrary. Theoretically the max range of the std is infinite. However because the input values are limited in range the std also becomes limited. You're thinking of it in terms of an infinite range from negative infinity to positive infinite. In terms of what we are dealing with practically things like IQ, height or engineering effectiveness are on a scale of 0 to infinite. So for IQ, or height, no one can have negative or zero height. This limit effectively limits the std. It is not arbitrary. Try it. For a distribution of integers on a range from 0 to infinite, let's say the mean is 1. The std will also have a maximum value of 1. If you add extreme data points to change std, you will also change the mean. This makes sense right? If you add say 9999999 to a distribution of numbers to keep the average the same you have to counterbalance it with a -9999999 or something like that. But however because the domain is limited from 0 to infinite you can't do that. So effectively the maximum value of the std is the mean itself assuming that the system is normally distributed.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > So for IQ, or height, no one can have negative or zero height. For height, sure, but since IQ scores are defined by the standard deviation of 15, a negative score is possible (you’d expect a single-digit number of people in the world population to have such scores.) Not sure if the typical test resolution is sufficient to distinguish that, though.
  - Herval_freire 4y ago
    Negative IQ? The test should be the definition of IQ, the statistical distribution doesn't define IQ. If the statistical distribution is saying you can have negative IQ but it is fundamentally impossible to score that amount on the test then the statistical model is the one that doesn't make any sense. In other words the statistical model is not an entirely accurate model of the IQ test. Which to me is what IQ is. If negative IQ exists what does it even mean? These numbers have to have some physical actualization. It doesn't make sense for IQ to be some measure of some factor that's impossible to ever actualize. That's just my interpretation though. Regardless of this though, it is highly highly unlikely for engineering productivity to go that deep into the negative. It's also fundamentally impossible to have infinite productivity too. The real domain is for sure some fixed range of numbers which makes the std for sure limited by the distance of the mean to the first number in the range. By this logic, A 10x engineer is analogous to someone with 1000 IQ or 58 feet in height. We have intuitions about this that is inline with the statistical outcomes I outlined above... and it makes sense to apply these intuitions to the concept of 10x engineers.