Do we believe that the outcomes will be equal over 100s of such trials? If we believe the outcomes will be different, why should we not consider that among other signals we get in interviewing?
Personally I’d bet on the socializer over the person putting in tons of extra hours in isolation anyday.
The Chinese weightlifting team (probably the most insanely competitive and selective team in the sport, and not a culture known for liking laziness), trains a total of 4-5 hours daily, at most. And the vast majority of that training is in sub-maximal loads and technical training that does not require tremendous efforts, just persistence.
They spend most of their time resting (weightlifters sleep between 10-12 hours daily) and eating, and not doing much related to weightlifting in between, saving their energy for the effective training under the supervision of experts, when it really matters.
This is a common theme among athletes and a lot of the highest performers in the world.
> trains a total of 4-5 hours daily, at most
You are making the parents point for them.
The average software developer would get closer to 2-3 hours a week of their work time dedicated to improving their skills.
Practice:Performance is highly skewed towards performance for work.
Athletes spend 99% of their time training. Software engineers in very competitive roles might spend 6 hours a day coding if all things go well. I have never seen a coding role where you don't spend substantial time reading docs, doing code reviews, or performing various tasks that comprise of similar practice.
Practice and performance are not the same thing. The mindset is entirely different.
Imagine a world where devs are told by their managers to stop working on a task when it’s clear that the task is not improving their skills.
It doesn’t happen because as a software dev every day is game day.
Instead they will get asked to solve the same kind of problem umpteenth times.
I’ve had to leave top tech companies just to get an opportunity to improve.