5 ms·

I have not read all of PG's essays, but the few things that I have read here, talking about Jessica Livingston, including this essay, set her up as a magic orac

I have not read all of PG's essays, but the few things that I have read here, talking about Jessica Livingston, including this essay, set her up as a magic oracle, sitting in obscure silence, judging everyone (on which basis, it is never revealed, except for appeals to "character", through a Social Radar). I don't disbelieve that is how it happens, but to me it just seems all a bit too magical. Like, founders should be betting their entire business that this person who won't talk to you can correctly divine your entire past and future trajectories just by watching you talk to her husband? Otherwise, they won't accept you into their family? It's a bit of a turn off and vaguely cult-like.

Spooky23 11y ago
In a world of extroverts, people who STFU and listen often acquire seemingly magical powers.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  There is huge value in observing and listening. Unfortunately, none of the descriptions demystify the magic. Maybe I am reading the descriptions incorrectly, but the actual logic behind the magic is never explained. The descriptions only contain an appeal to a magic oracle power. >But after the interview, the three of us would turn to Jessica and ask "What does the Social Radar say?" [1] The footnote for that quote says: >... >"She was always good at sniffing out any red flags about the team or their determination and disarmingly asking the right question, which usually revealed more than the founders realized." I'd be interested in reading or knowing more about the questions which were asked, instead of a direct appeal to authority (right question), what the questions revealed, and what the founders actually realized. As far as I can tell, these details never get discussed publicly.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    "Unfortunately, none of the descriptions demystify the magic. Maybe I am reading the descriptions incorrectly, but the actual logic behind the magic is never explained. The descriptions only contain an appeal to a magic oracle power." Which says, to me, that pg doesn't understand it, either. He just trusts it based on historical reliability. I'd also be curious to know what some of those magically insightful questions were, but I don't think it nullifies the point of the article to not include them.
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    Instincts matter. My grandfather was a pub owner -- he could talk to anyone about anything, and was often able to de-escalate people and situations. I remember him being a fluent reader of body language... he could size somebody up and immediately & accurately tell you that the person was trouble.
  - jkaunisv1 11y ago
    I don't get the impression there's much magic. She's highly socially skilled around people who are less so. Imagine if Jessica ran a VC firm with two other people like her, plus Paul, and they were trying to fund companies that required immense social skills. The founders would all be excellent conversationalists and promoters, and could probably fake the tech talk enough that Jessica couldn't tell. PG would be able to spot the buzzwords and call them on it, and it would seem magical to the rest because they don't know SQL from C++.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      >I don't get the impression there's much magic. She's highly socially skilled around people who are less so. I try not to believe in magic as well, so I assume there are reasons why a particular founder was judged unsuitable. It's just that those reasons are not explored and all the language used to described the YC process is essentially an appeal to a magic oracle. >Imagine if Jessica ran a VC firm with two other people like her, plus Paul, and they were trying to fund companies that required immense social skills. I've never been inside a VC firm, so it's difficult for me to imagine precisely what that would be like. Are you saying that the scenario in this hypothetical is different from YC? >The founders would all be excellent conversationalists and promoters, and could probably fake the tech talk enough that Jessica couldn't tell. PG would be able to spot the buzzwords and call them on it, and it would seem magical to the rest because they don't know SQL from C++. It sounds like a decent strategy. Certainly not foolproof, but at least you can filter out the people who understand the language, but not yet the technicals...I think.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Very well-said. And hilarious. :)
Natsu 11y ago
I don't think there's any "magic" to it, just careful observation.
SwellJoe 11y ago
You're inferring more than I think is intended. Jessica is the primary point of contact for founders (or, at least, was when we were in YC)...she talks to them a lot, on a one on one basis. Moreso than pg or others, generally speaking. The interview is mostly pg talking, or was for us, with some interjections by rtm because we work on systems issues where he had more experience, but that's not the whole picture, at all. She is not a silent Oracle, she just isn't particularly outgoing when it comes to press and such, and so she is not seen when looking in from the outside. She is extremely friendly, entirely sincere, and not at all judgmental (unless, of course, there is something negative to judge...character of founders does matter, and if pg has noticed Jessica has better skills in judging character it would be silly to ignore her opinion). pg and the boys seem imminently capable of spotting technical fakery, but maybe are weaker at spotting character fakery. I dunno. They've obviously had great success with the way they operate. I would be unwilling to bet against them, and I know they do it while adhering to pretty high ethical standards. So, call it a cult if you like, but if I had my druthers, more of the industry would imitate YC.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  I know I am missing things (I can only read with PG and others write and post) and your version sounds plausible and is much closer to how I imagine reality actually is. However, your claim nearly directly contradicts this essay: >PG: One of the things she's best at is judging people. >You: She is ... not at all judgmental ([exception]) So, yes, we have this exception where the key value is all in the judgement of individuals (I'll put aside the seeming contradictions in this line of thought for now), but the basis of the judgement is never given. Instead all the descriptions just refer to generic "negative character attributes" (my own paraphrasing). There is never a description of what a negative character attribute is (other than the very vague, "faker"), how it was determined that a person possesses such a character, nor how the decisions are followed up to see if the judgments were accurate. The essays also make it sound like Jessica's feedback is never given to those who are interviewed. From the descriptions, it sounds like Jessica either gives you a thumbs up or a thumbs down. If you get a thumbs down you just get the boot, but likely no feedback on how your character was judged. >call it a cult if you like I didn't call YC a cult. I said that some of the descriptions given in this essay, and others, are vaguely cult-like.
rudolf0 11y ago
It's not cult-like, but it does seem arbitrary. What if Jessica gets a "bad vibe" from someone who happens to genuinely be a good, smart, honest person? All forms of radar have false positives and false negatives. Even if she does happen to have a very high success rate, she or anyone else can't always be right. Of course, that's what all job interviews are like. If they get a bad vibe from you or think you're not a "culture fit", they can quickly reject you based on a short impression. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. What bothers me is the reptition of the idea that any one person can be some kind of magical oracle of character judgment, bordering on having psychic properties. Especially without strong scientific evidence. I'd rather PG use less black-and-white language.
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  What I'm seeing a lot of is discomfort with the seemingly arbitrary nature of social interactions and making judgments based on them. We nerds (and I am among this bunch) don't really like the fact that popularity, "emotional IQ", and social influence are not quantifiable, but we are judged on them, anyway. When someone wants to be judged on very clear metrics, being told there is a mysterious "other" metric that seems to reside in the head of one person, is uncomfortable, maybe even frightening. The thing is, however, that everything you do will also have this metric applied to it, by everyone you interact with, and it is a metric that impacts success. Any sales interaction you have, any hiring process you implement, any investor meeting you have, etc. All human interactions will be judged with this metric in addition to the other metrics. Is it "fair"? I don't know. But, it is reality. Given that, having someone who is good at it, on a team that is otherwise not good at it (and having read pg on nerds and popularity, I can surmise he considers himself not terribly good at it; nerds in general are famously socially inept), is worthwhile. Which raises the concern that the social ineptitude of a technically brilliant founder might prevent them from getting into YC (and I think that is the fear being expressed in this thread). I can say that most YC founders I know are charming people; nerdy, mostly, but still charming and socially adept, at least when interacting with similarly nerdy peers. Is this a prerequisite for startup success? And, is it actually what is being selected for when we talk about this "social radar"? I don't know. I don't think I have this particular skill strongly enough to recognize a hit and a miss on these metrics, though I can spot technical fakery a mile away (and there's a surprisingly high number of applicants who are technically incompetent trying to pass for competent; I suspect few make it past the application process).
mbesto 11y ago
> I don't disbelieve that is how it happens, but to me it just seems all a bit too magical. I agree, so let me try to rephrase for you. For a bunch of people (YC et al) who actively promote making decisions with data, resorting to some ill-defined intangible such as "Social Radar" as being the secret sauce for success just seems noticeably contrived.
- Natsu 11y ago
  Even put that way, having someone skilled at observing people do so consistent with operating on data. If they hadn't listened to her, they'd have missed AirBnB, for example.

Spooky23 11y ago

In a world of extroverts, people who STFU and listen often acquire seemingly magical powers.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
There is huge value in observing and listening. Unfortunately, none of the descriptions demystify the magic. Maybe I am reading the descriptions incorrectly, but the actual logic behind the magic is never explained. The descriptions only contain an appeal to a magic oracle power. >But after the interview, the three of us would turn to Jessica and ask "What does the Social Radar say?" [1] The footnote for that quote says: >... >"She was always good at sniffing out any red flags about the team or their determination and disarmingly asking the right question, which usually revealed more than the founders realized." I'd be interested in reading or knowing more about the questions which were asked, instead of a direct appeal to authority (right question), what the questions revealed, and what the founders actually realized. As far as I can tell, these details never get discussed publicly.
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  "Unfortunately, none of the descriptions demystify the magic. Maybe I am reading the descriptions incorrectly, but the actual logic behind the magic is never explained. The descriptions only contain an appeal to a magic oracle power." Which says, to me, that pg doesn't understand it, either. He just trusts it based on historical reliability. I'd also be curious to know what some of those magically insightful questions were, but I don't think it nullifies the point of the article to not include them.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  Instincts matter. My grandfather was a pub owner -- he could talk to anyone about anything, and was often able to de-escalate people and situations. I remember him being a fluent reader of body language... he could size somebody up and immediately & accurately tell you that the person was trouble.
- jkaunisv1 11y ago
  I don't get the impression there's much magic. She's highly socially skilled around people who are less so. Imagine if Jessica ran a VC firm with two other people like her, plus Paul, and they were trying to fund companies that required immense social skills. The founders would all be excellent conversationalists and promoters, and could probably fake the tech talk enough that Jessica couldn't tell. PG would be able to spot the buzzwords and call them on it, and it would seem magical to the rest because they don't know SQL from C++.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    >I don't get the impression there's much magic. She's highly socially skilled around people who are less so. I try not to believe in magic as well, so I assume there are reasons why a particular founder was judged unsuitable. It's just that those reasons are not explored and all the language used to described the YC process is essentially an appeal to a magic oracle. >Imagine if Jessica ran a VC firm with two other people like her, plus Paul, and they were trying to fund companies that required immense social skills. I've never been inside a VC firm, so it's difficult for me to imagine precisely what that would be like. Are you saying that the scenario in this hypothetical is different from YC? >The founders would all be excellent conversationalists and promoters, and could probably fake the tech talk enough that Jessica couldn't tell. PG would be able to spot the buzzwords and call them on it, and it would seem magical to the rest because they don't know SQL from C++. It sounds like a decent strategy. Certainly not foolproof, but at least you can filter out the people who understand the language, but not yet the technicals...I think.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Very well-said. And hilarious. :)

Natsu 11y ago

I don't think there's any "magic" to it, just careful observation.

SwellJoe 11y ago

You're inferring more than I think is intended. Jessica is the primary point of contact for founders (or, at least, was when we were in YC)...she talks to them a lot, on a one on one basis. Moreso than pg or others, generally speaking. The interview is mostly pg talking, or was for us, with some interjections by rtm because we work on systems issues where he had more experience, but that's not the whole picture, at all. She is not a silent Oracle, she just isn't particularly outgoing when it comes to press and such, and so she is not seen when looking in from the outside. She is extremely friendly, entirely sincere, and not at all judgmental (unless, of course, there is something negative to judge...character of founders does matter, and if pg has noticed Jessica has better skills in judging character it would be silly to ignore her opinion). pg and the boys seem imminently capable of spotting technical fakery, but maybe are weaker at spotting character fakery. I dunno. They've obviously had great success with the way they operate. I would be unwilling to bet against them, and I know they do it while adhering to pretty high ethical standards. So, call it a cult if you like, but if I had my druthers, more of the industry would imitate YC.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
I know I am missing things (I can only read with PG and others write and post) and your version sounds plausible and is much closer to how I imagine reality actually is. However, your claim nearly directly contradicts this essay: >PG: One of the things she's best at is judging people. >You: She is ... not at all judgmental ([exception]) So, yes, we have this exception where the key value is all in the judgement of individuals (I'll put aside the seeming contradictions in this line of thought for now), but the basis of the judgement is never given. Instead all the descriptions just refer to generic "negative character attributes" (my own paraphrasing). There is never a description of what a negative character attribute is (other than the very vague, "faker"), how it was determined that a person possesses such a character, nor how the decisions are followed up to see if the judgments were accurate. The essays also make it sound like Jessica's feedback is never given to those who are interviewed. From the descriptions, it sounds like Jessica either gives you a thumbs up or a thumbs down. If you get a thumbs down you just get the boot, but likely no feedback on how your character was judged. >call it a cult if you like I didn't call YC a cult. I said that some of the descriptions given in this essay, and others, are vaguely cult-like.

rudolf0 11y ago

It's not cult-like, but it does seem arbitrary. What if Jessica gets a "bad vibe" from someone who happens to genuinely be a good, smart, honest person? All forms of radar have false positives and false negatives. Even if she does happen to have a very high success rate, she or anyone else can't always be right. Of course, that's what all job interviews are like. If they get a bad vibe from you or think you're not a "culture fit", they can quickly reject you based on a short impression. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. What bothers me is the reptition of the idea that any one person can be some kind of magical oracle of character judgment, bordering on having psychic properties. Especially without strong scientific evidence. I'd rather PG use less black-and-white language.

SwellJoe 11y ago
What I'm seeing a lot of is discomfort with the seemingly arbitrary nature of social interactions and making judgments based on them. We nerds (and I am among this bunch) don't really like the fact that popularity, "emotional IQ", and social influence are not quantifiable, but we are judged on them, anyway. When someone wants to be judged on very clear metrics, being told there is a mysterious "other" metric that seems to reside in the head of one person, is uncomfortable, maybe even frightening. The thing is, however, that everything you do will also have this metric applied to it, by everyone you interact with, and it is a metric that impacts success. Any sales interaction you have, any hiring process you implement, any investor meeting you have, etc. All human interactions will be judged with this metric in addition to the other metrics. Is it "fair"? I don't know. But, it is reality. Given that, having someone who is good at it, on a team that is otherwise not good at it (and having read pg on nerds and popularity, I can surmise he considers himself not terribly good at it; nerds in general are famously socially inept), is worthwhile. Which raises the concern that the social ineptitude of a technically brilliant founder might prevent them from getting into YC (and I think that is the fear being expressed in this thread). I can say that most YC founders I know are charming people; nerdy, mostly, but still charming and socially adept, at least when interacting with similarly nerdy peers. Is this a prerequisite for startup success? And, is it actually what is being selected for when we talk about this "social radar"? I don't know. I don't think I have this particular skill strongly enough to recognize a hit and a miss on these metrics, though I can spot technical fakery a mile away (and there's a surprisingly high number of applicants who are technically incompetent trying to pass for competent; I suspect few make it past the application process).

mbesto 11y ago

> I don't disbelieve that is how it happens, but to me it just seems all a bit too magical. I agree, so let me try to rephrase for you. For a bunch of people (YC et al) who actively promote making decisions with data, resorting to some ill-defined intangible such as "Social Radar" as being the secret sauce for success just seems noticeably contrived.

Natsu 11y ago
Even put that way, having someone skilled at observing people do so consistent with operating on data. If they hadn't listened to her, they'd have missed AirBnB, for example.