Hacker News Reader

Comment by twalla | Hacker News Reader

"If you want an average successful life, it doesn’t take much planning. Just stay out of trouble, go to school, and apply for jobs you might like. But if you want something extraordinary, you have two paths:

1. Become the best at one specific thing. 2. Become very good (top 25%) at two or more things."

I'm certain at least some small part of my own success can be attributed to my exposure to this idea, and for that I give my respects to Adams. As far as Adam's character (or lack thereof) is concerned, that's already being discussed elsewhere in this thread by others more eloquent than myself, so I'll leave that to them.

View on HN

> 2. Become very good (top 25%) at two or more things.

Is this idea that top 25% is "very good" at something innumeracy, or a subtle insight I'm missing? There's got to be a million skills that you could assess rank at -- writing embedded C code, playing basketball, identifying flora, PacMan, archery, bouldering… I can't imagine ever being able to not continue this list -- and you should expect to be in the top 25% of roughly a quarter of those skills, obviously heavily biased towards the ones you've tried, and even more biased towards the ones you care about. It's hard to imagine anyone who's not in the top 25% of skill assessment in a dozen things, let alone two or more…

If you consider your denominator to be the population of practitioners, rather than "everybody", top quartile would be pretty good. To use chess as an example, the 75th percentile of the global population probably knows the rules and nothing else. The 75th percentile of chess players would be an Elo of 1800 and change.

Ignore the numbers - the gist is being good enough at the right two or three things can create similar value for you as being the best at one specific thing.

Everyone (for the sake of my argument) wants to be an engineer at a FAANG but there are tons of folks making more money with more autonomy because they've found a niche that combines their good-enough technical ability with an understanding or interest in an underserved market.

Okay, make it two useful things then. Be a top 25% marketeer and a top 25% programmer and you are worth so much more than either separately.

I think it's generally accepted that at a high level being in the top quartile is considered very good. Not excellent. Not unicorn. Just very good.

Beyond that, it's not about becoming very good at two different, completely orthogonal things, it's about becoming very good at two things that are complementary in some way that is of value to others. Being good at PacMan and Bouldering is only particularly valuable if you are competing for opportunities to participate in a hypothetical mixed reality video game, or perhaps a very niche streaming channel. Being the top quartile of embedded c code, and flora identification could result in building software/hardware tools to identify flora, which is a niche that currently has multiple competing products that are high value to those interested.

He wrote that 20 years ago. I think today, it's more like top 10% in 3 or more things.

a [chemist, biologist, mathematician, DSP researcher] who can code at a professional level (that 25%) is worth far more to the right position than either of those skills individually.

It depends on the population you are taking from. Being the top quartile embedded C developer in the world is perhaps unimpressive (there are up to 2 billion people better than you at embedded C programming), but being the top quartile embedded C developer within the population of professional embedded C developers is much more impressive.

It's (obviously) a random number pulled out from someone's ass. However, I think top 25% isn't that off. It means top 25% of people who actually tried.

If it still sounds easy, try to reach top 25% rank of a video game that you are not familiar with (diamond in Starcraft II or whatever). You'll find it's literally the workload of a full-time job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com