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.
> 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.
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.
I didn't say it has to mean that. 1x is the average. We agree on that. The std can be anything. But the max possible std is 1x. that's all I'm saying.
You can now define the std to be whatever you want up to 1x. So I take the most ludicrously large std then interpret what the term 10x means in terms of the maximum std.
10x is in this case, 10 std from the norm IF 1x was the std. So the 10x concept is ludicrously improbable. The real std is likely much lower than 1x this making the existence of a 10x engineer even less likely.
This isn't arbitrary. This is the definitive interpretation using statistics. Science so to speak. If you like to interpret 10x under some crazy uneven scaling or use some other methodology other then science, be my guest. But such actions wouldn't be conducive of a 10xer would it? Which further supports my point.
> No one and I mean no one has seen a project accelerate backwards by negative 10.
Have you read the article? -10x is not about "accelerating backwards", it's about bringing the project to stand still / significantly slowing it down.
And I have seen this multiple times. People who in one way or another managed to slow down other people. Toxic people can create such an environment that the productive people quit. They don't bring smaller value, not even zero value, they bring negative value to the team/project.
> -1x means the project is rapidly disassembling itself and engineers are losing knowledge and intelligence.
I don't know where you come with this arbitrary interpretation of exactly -1, but yes, that happens to projects.
Bring a project to a stand still with the term -10x? The term itself doesn't make sense.
I know the article is generally just talking about bad engineers. However the topic I started here is more about the term 10x.
>And I have seen this multiple times. People who in one way or another managed to slow down other people. Toxic people can create such an environment that the productive people quit. They don't bring smaller value, not even zero value, they bring negative value to the team/project.
Sure but negative progress or -10x progress or 10x progress is just not realistic. The 10 in the term 10x is the thing that is arbitrary. Not only is it arbitrary it's completely unrealistic.
>I don't know where you come with this arbitrary interpretation of exactly -1, but yes, that happens to projects.
Arbitrary definition of 1x? 1x is default -1x would be the default but backwards. It's anything but arbitrary as it's the smallest whole number metric for negative performance. The 10 on 10x is again the arbitrary constant here. Why 10? is it because we have 10 fingers or use base 10 in our number system? 10 is Arbitrary.
Also, Losing knowledge and intelligence is the equivalent of brain damage so are people banging their heads against walls and shooting up on brain damaging drugs? Doubt it. Productivity stops at zero, negative progress is so rare it's basically non-existent, that is unless you think people are regularly suffering from brain damage.
People who use the term 10x or -10x as some kind of relatively accurate metric (like many in this thread are doing) aren't applying good intuition or statistical knowledge to the situation. 2x for really good engineers and 0x for really bad engineers are the more technically accurate term. I get the usage of 10x as purely an expression but that is Not what the topic of this thread as evolved into.
> Not only is it arbitrary it's completely unrealistic.
Pick one. Can't be both.
> 1x is default -1x would be the default but backwards
Not backwards. In terms of value, 1x is a value produced by 1 typical developer. -1x is a decrease of value.
> Also, Losing knowledge and intelligence is the equivalent of brain damage so are people banging their heads against walls and shooting up on brain damaging drugs?
Organizations lose knowledge all the time because people quit because of e.g. toxicity in the workplace (brought by -10x employees).
I guess I'm done with this conversation, it no longer interests me.
Pick what? I didn't pick anything. I'm just laying out examples.
>Not backwards. In terms of value, 1x is a value produced by 1 typical developer. -1x is a decrease of value.
Yeah so my point is -1x is Not arbitrary. You said it is. I simply said it isn't.
>Organizations lose knowledge all the time because people quit because of e.g. toxicity in the workplace (brought by -10x employees).
That's one way of looking at it. It's valid. But by itself I was referring to an honest employee acting to the best of his capability. Like IQ this part cannot be negative. Things like side effects of a bad actor deliberately damaging the company is not something I was referring to. Overall though this type of thing is hard to measure and anecdotally rare.
I mean if you want to factor in terrorists who bomb the tech and kill everyone in the company into your model, sure. Terrorists have -10000x productivity.
>I guess I'm done with this conversation, it no longer interests me.
Sure. That's fine. The conversation is getting into the nitty gritty of interpretation of words which is pointless imo. I think you're pretty clear about what I'm talking about. All in all though my statistical interpretation is still ultimately correct.
Arbitrary or unrealistic. Utterly obvious from context; you said "arbitrary and unrealistic", they replied "pick one or the other".
Somewhere else you write about "if you only understood what I wrote". Honestly... This shows that the problem there wasn't with someone else's understanding of English, but yours.
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.