4 ms·

The argument seems like a cheat, because it rules out people who don't participate, but doesn't limit itself to people who practice regularly. For video games,

The argument seems like a cheat, because it rules out people who don't participate, but doesn't limit itself to people who practice regularly. For video games, an analogy could be limiting to people who bought the game on steam, but not limiting to people who ever installed and played it. Or maybe a better analogy is website users, limiting to people who visited, but still including all the people who immediately bounced/closed the tab. Like, if you take basketball, I'd bet a lot of people here have shot a basketball, but don't practice regularly. The last time I held a basketball was probably 20 years ago, so should I still count? The point is that participation itself is too much of a spectrum, so the 95%ile statement is just 'most participants basically don't really participate, and there's a long tail of participation.' Which isn't super worthwhile. If you limit to people who "regularly practice" a thing, this would be an interesting argument, but it also wouldn't be true then.

topaz0 3y ago
On the contrary I think that's the main point: that a fairly trivial amount of practice is enough to surpass almost everyone who you'll encounter in the activity. Obviously (tautologically) the average person who practices regularly will be average among the people who practice regularly -- you'd have to practice exceptionally well (or perhaps start out with exceptional talent) for practice to make you exceptional in that group. So I don't think it's a cheat, it's just about putting it into perspective.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > everyone who you'll encounter in the activity You have a far smaller chance of encountering the person who puts in 3 hours and then quits. The average encountered participator is much more skilled than the average participator.
naniwaduni 3y ago
You can weight by frequency of activity—say, approximately "players sampled from matches selected uniformly at random"—and it'd largely still be true. The top few percentiles do practice more often, but overwhelmingly so. Glicko metrics for two-player games basically have this property, so if you want to try it out in the wild, you can pick up a game with a Glicko-rated ladder and see how hard it is to get your mean rating estimate up +2 SDs.
godelski 3y ago
> For video games, an analogy could be limiting to people who bought the game on steam, but not limiting to people who ever installed and played it. I think he is accounting for that. Especially since the thesis has a recursive nature to it. In fact, he does even step down one level. I don't think a person with 1200 hrs is considered a non-participant.

topaz0 3y ago

On the contrary I think that's the main point: that a fairly trivial amount of practice is enough to surpass almost everyone who you'll encounter in the activity. Obviously (tautologically) the average person who practices regularly will be average among the people who practice regularly -- you'd have to practice exceptionally well (or perhaps start out with exceptional talent) for practice to make you exceptional in that group. So I don't think it's a cheat, it's just about putting it into perspective.

Dylan16807 3y ago
> everyone who you'll encounter in the activity You have a far smaller chance of encountering the person who puts in 3 hours and then quits. The average encountered participator is much more skilled than the average participator.

naniwaduni 3y ago

You can weight by frequency of activity—say, approximately "players sampled from matches selected uniformly at random"—and it'd largely still be true. The top few percentiles do practice more often, but overwhelmingly so. Glicko metrics for two-player games basically have this property, so if you want to try it out in the wild, you can pick up a game with a Glicko-rated ladder and see how hard it is to get your mean rating estimate up +2 SDs.

godelski 3y ago

> For video games, an analogy could be limiting to people who bought the game on steam, but not limiting to people who ever installed and played it. I think he is accounting for that. Especially since the thesis has a recursive nature to it. In fact, he does even step down one level. I don't think a person with 1200 hrs is considered a non-participant.