4 ms·

First of all, some star athletes are statistically far more than 10x better than the average. For example, the average NHL player scores less than 50 goals in h

First of all, some star athletes are statistically far more than 10x better than the average. For example, the average NHL player scores less than 50 goals in his career [1] whereas Gretzky scored 894 [2] and Mario Lemieux scored 690 [3]. And that doesn't even count their assists, leadership, defense, name recognition (bringing in fans), etc. And I'm not even comparing these guys to other pro hockey players, such as the minor leagues and leagues outside of the US. However, not all sports have "points" that scale the same way, so the 10x number is not as easy to apply. For example, Usain Bolt is not literally 10 times faster than the average professional sprinter; his best 100m is 9.58 [4], where as any moderately fit male can easily hit sub 20 seconds, and I believe any professional sprinter will go under 11 seconds. Nevertheless, I'd guess that in the 100m sprint, a difference of 1 or 2 seconds represents an order of magnitude (or two) difference in ability, even if it's only 10-20% of the time. What kind of odds would you give him in a race against an "average professional"? 10:1? 100:1? 1000:1? Usain is roughly as far above other pro sprinters as Gretzky and Lemieux were against other pro hockey players. I'd also mention that "fame" is a bit of an x-factor. The world is not a perfect meritocracy and there is so much luck and so many external factors that go into being famous that it's not necessarily true that only famous scientists/musicians/writers are the only ones who are 10x. Of course, the famous folks are the only ones I can reasonably use as examples, and fame likely correlates with talent, though that talent may just be at being famous :) [1] http://www.quanthockey.com/Distributions/CareerGoals.php http://www.quanthockey.com/Distributions/CareerGoals.php [2] http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8447400 http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8447400 [3] http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8448782 http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8448782 [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_100_metres_world_record_progression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_100_metres_world_record_p...

silvestrov 13y ago
Imagine that you were not sprinting 100m to measure the time, but to measure how many animals you can catch. In that case, running 100m in 10 seconds rather can 20s could easily mean you can catch 10 times as many animals.
frostmatthew 13y ago
> the average NHL player scores less than 50 goals in his career [1] whereas Gretzky scored 894 [2] and Mario Lemieux scored 690 [3] But what are the numbers per season? If Gretzky had a career ending injury at the end of his first season he still would have been better than a mediocre player, even though an average player could play for years and rack up more in a career than the best could in a single season. My point is did players like Gretzky and Lemieux score ten times as many goals per season than the average player? I'll assume I'm an average engineer (since statistically speaking this is the most likely case), it blows my mind to think there's a large number of people out there who in just a few hours could knock out everything I spent all of last week on. (I'm not saying 10x devs don't exist, I just think they are very few and far between, the NHL afterall has only had one Gretzky in its entire history)
- brikis98 13y ago
  Actually, in the case of Gretzky and Lemieux, I believe they did average ~10x more points (and other contributions) per season than the average player. Also, don't forget that the NHL is just the best of the best; there are many hockey players that are "pros" but never make it to the NHL. When you factor them in, players like Gretzky may be several orders of magnitude better than average. >> it blows my mind to think there's a large number of people out there who in just a few hours could knock out everything I spent all of last week on. First of all, as I wrote in the post, 10x programmers are rare. There isn't a "large number" of them. Second, it's not about producing more lines of code per minute or per week. It's about producing the maximum value (for lack of a better word) in a time period by making good decisions. I'm not a 10x programmer and the results on my own work week are pretty obvious: when I look at it closely, I realize that I spend a lot of time dealing previous mistakes. I lose days because I made a solution that's too tightly coupled and it's hard to adapt the code to a new situation; I didn't add enough tests and waste lots of time fixing regressions; I didn't add enough documentation and can't remember why I made certain decisions; I've created designs that don't scale and need to be replaced entirely; and so on. Since it's harder to read code than to write it[1] and since the cost of fixing defects increases dramatically later in the software process[2], these bad decisions eat up an enormous amount of time. However, as I learn more, I've noticed that I spend a much higher proportion of my time solving the "real" business problem instead of dealing with previous mistakes. In other words, I'm becoming dramatically more productive than I used to be, not because I'm typing faster, but because I'm avoiding/reducing entire branches of work that used to eat up my time. These sorts of effects multiply: for the 10x programmer, the gain in productivity can be huge and they will be able to get an order of magnitude more done than the average coder. * [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html * [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_testing#Economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_testing#Economics

silvestrov 13y ago

Imagine that you were not sprinting 100m to measure the time, but to measure how many animals you can catch. In that case, running 100m in 10 seconds rather can 20s could easily mean you can catch 10 times as many animals.

frostmatthew 13y ago

> the average NHL player scores less than 50 goals in his career [1] whereas Gretzky scored 894 [2] and Mario Lemieux scored 690 [3] But what are the numbers per season? If Gretzky had a career ending injury at the end of his first season he still would have been better than a mediocre player, even though an average player could play for years and rack up more in a career than the best could in a single season. My point is did players like Gretzky and Lemieux score ten times as many goals per season than the average player? I'll assume I'm an average engineer (since statistically speaking this is the most likely case), it blows my mind to think there's a large number of people out there who in just a few hours could knock out everything I spent all of last week on. (I'm not saying 10x devs don't exist, I just think they are very few and far between, the NHL afterall has only had one Gretzky in its entire history)

brikis98 13y ago
Actually, in the case of Gretzky and Lemieux, I believe they did average ~10x more points (and other contributions) per season than the average player. Also, don't forget that the NHL is just the best of the best; there are many hockey players that are "pros" but never make it to the NHL. When you factor them in, players like Gretzky may be several orders of magnitude better than average. >> it blows my mind to think there's a large number of people out there who in just a few hours could knock out everything I spent all of last week on. First of all, as I wrote in the post, 10x programmers are rare. There isn't a "large number" of them. Second, it's not about producing more lines of code per minute or per week. It's about producing the maximum value (for lack of a better word) in a time period by making good decisions. I'm not a 10x programmer and the results on my own work week are pretty obvious: when I look at it closely, I realize that I spend a lot of time dealing previous mistakes. I lose days because I made a solution that's too tightly coupled and it's hard to adapt the code to a new situation; I didn't add enough tests and waste lots of time fixing regressions; I didn't add enough documentation and can't remember why I made certain decisions; I've created designs that don't scale and need to be replaced entirely; and so on. Since it's harder to read code than to write it[1] and since the cost of fixing defects increases dramatically later in the software process[2], these bad decisions eat up an enormous amount of time. However, as I learn more, I've noticed that I spend a much higher proportion of my time solving the "real" business problem instead of dealing with previous mistakes. In other words, I'm becoming dramatically more productive than I used to be, not because I'm typing faster, but because I'm avoiding/reducing entire branches of work that used to eat up my time. These sorts of effects multiply: for the 10x programmer, the gain in productivity can be huge and they will be able to get an order of magnitude more done than the average coder. * [1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html * [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_testing#Economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_testing#Economics