6 ms·

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

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.
- npunt 11y ago
  Being a good judge of people and being judgmental are not anywhere near the same thing. Being judgmental is usually meant as someone who is quick to criticize even mundane things and who focuses on the negative. Its a filter that ignores the positive and amplifies the negative - someone who blows things out of proportion. It often is driven by a desire to feel superior to another and comes from a place of insecurity. Being a good judge of someone is being observant and weighing the complexities of what someone presents of themselves. Think lady justice with the scales - taking a whole picture before making judgment, and avoiding bringing in one's own motivations, emotions, or concerns in the process. Lady justice's blindfold is the symbol for this objectivity. As you can see they're totally different in how they filter data, when they make judgment, and their relationship to the other. You're right, the criteria used doesn't seem to be visible. While feedback on particular aspects of an interview NOT related to social cues would be helpful, feedback for social cues & character is just not something anyone owes you - no matter how emotionally difficult an interaction may be to participate in. There are likely ways you can get feedback on these kinds of things - friends or coaches - but ultimately its not the kind of thing that one studies directly for. If it were, everyone would come in an actor, rather than themselves (and lets face it, the psychopaths would be the winners). You can try all you want to study how to project the right microexpressions and whatever but that's endlessly complex and you'll lack sufficient data to optimize, not least of which is because every person and situation is unique. This may go against some notions of fairness but lack of visibility and feedback is just part of the domain of social interactions. Fundamentally the character & social cues you give off are an output of what you do with other inputs - how you view and treat people, what you're motivated by, the time you take to strengthen your own observational skills (such as through mindfulness practice) and how well you know yourself, etc. If you're concerned about giving off good social cues, you'll get a heck of a lot farther focusing on building an awareness of whats going on in your mind, in the conversation, and with the other person that is triggering those cues. That's the best way to be genuine, and in turn the best way to come across as genuine.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    >Its a filter that ignores the positive and amplifies the negative - someone who blows things out of proportion. Isn't this basically the feature that is being claimed here? PG relates that even when the other partners are all go, Jessica has an amplifier that finds the negatives and blows it up? The only thing left to determine would be whether the proportion was correct. Unfortunately, the aftermath of the explosions aren't really discussed in these essays, so we can only speculate. >Think lady justice with the scales - taking a whole picture before making judgment, and avoiding bringing in one's own motivations, emotions, or concerns in the process. Lady justice's blindfold is the symbol for this objectivity. It sounds fine in theory, but unless this lady can put down the logical argument that connects the premises to the conclusions, and which can be argued against, I wouldn't want such a lady deciding justice for anyone. >Lady justice's blindfold is the symbol for this objectivity. I think any time objectivity is being symbolized, you need to be very, very careful. As far as we can tell, true objectivity cannot be attained. Fetishizing is dangerous. >There are likely ways you can get feedback on these kinds of things - friends or coaches - but ultimately its not the kind of thing that one studies directly for. If it were, everyone would come in an actor, rather than themselves (and lets face it, the psychopaths would be the winners). You can try all you want to study how to project the right microexpressions and whatever but that's endlessly complex and you'll lack sufficient data to optimize, not least of which is because every person and situation is unique. This may go against some notions of fairness but lack of visibility and feedback is just part of the domain of social interactions. I agree. The problem is that this essay essentially describes YC's process as being exactly this situation. Jessica sits and analyzes the situation, then brings down judgement and it is decided. No details given (so, one must assume that the decision could be based on such things as microexpressions, though PG labels it character, and Social Radar). >Fundamentally the character & social cues you give off And here is the problem. People don't give off character and social cues, those are entirely constructs in the perceiving mind. Assuming that people are communicating some thing that they may not be is a recipe for problems. Relagating an oracle to interpret such communications (which may or may not exist) is something that is difficult to comprehend.

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.

npunt 11y ago
Being a good judge of people and being judgmental are not anywhere near the same thing. Being judgmental is usually meant as someone who is quick to criticize even mundane things and who focuses on the negative. Its a filter that ignores the positive and amplifies the negative - someone who blows things out of proportion. It often is driven by a desire to feel superior to another and comes from a place of insecurity. Being a good judge of someone is being observant and weighing the complexities of what someone presents of themselves. Think lady justice with the scales - taking a whole picture before making judgment, and avoiding bringing in one's own motivations, emotions, or concerns in the process. Lady justice's blindfold is the symbol for this objectivity. As you can see they're totally different in how they filter data, when they make judgment, and their relationship to the other. You're right, the criteria used doesn't seem to be visible. While feedback on particular aspects of an interview NOT related to social cues would be helpful, feedback for social cues & character is just not something anyone owes you - no matter how emotionally difficult an interaction may be to participate in. There are likely ways you can get feedback on these kinds of things - friends or coaches - but ultimately its not the kind of thing that one studies directly for. If it were, everyone would come in an actor, rather than themselves (and lets face it, the psychopaths would be the winners). You can try all you want to study how to project the right microexpressions and whatever but that's endlessly complex and you'll lack sufficient data to optimize, not least of which is because every person and situation is unique. This may go against some notions of fairness but lack of visibility and feedback is just part of the domain of social interactions. Fundamentally the character & social cues you give off are an output of what you do with other inputs - how you view and treat people, what you're motivated by, the time you take to strengthen your own observational skills (such as through mindfulness practice) and how well you know yourself, etc. If you're concerned about giving off good social cues, you'll get a heck of a lot farther focusing on building an awareness of whats going on in your mind, in the conversation, and with the other person that is triggering those cues. That's the best way to be genuine, and in turn the best way to come across as genuine.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  >Its a filter that ignores the positive and amplifies the negative - someone who blows things out of proportion. Isn't this basically the feature that is being claimed here? PG relates that even when the other partners are all go, Jessica has an amplifier that finds the negatives and blows it up? The only thing left to determine would be whether the proportion was correct. Unfortunately, the aftermath of the explosions aren't really discussed in these essays, so we can only speculate. >Think lady justice with the scales - taking a whole picture before making judgment, and avoiding bringing in one's own motivations, emotions, or concerns in the process. Lady justice's blindfold is the symbol for this objectivity. It sounds fine in theory, but unless this lady can put down the logical argument that connects the premises to the conclusions, and which can be argued against, I wouldn't want such a lady deciding justice for anyone. >Lady justice's blindfold is the symbol for this objectivity. I think any time objectivity is being symbolized, you need to be very, very careful. As far as we can tell, true objectivity cannot be attained. Fetishizing is dangerous. >There are likely ways you can get feedback on these kinds of things - friends or coaches - but ultimately its not the kind of thing that one studies directly for. If it were, everyone would come in an actor, rather than themselves (and lets face it, the psychopaths would be the winners). You can try all you want to study how to project the right microexpressions and whatever but that's endlessly complex and you'll lack sufficient data to optimize, not least of which is because every person and situation is unique. This may go against some notions of fairness but lack of visibility and feedback is just part of the domain of social interactions. I agree. The problem is that this essay essentially describes YC's process as being exactly this situation. Jessica sits and analyzes the situation, then brings down judgement and it is decided. No details given (so, one must assume that the decision could be based on such things as microexpressions, though PG labels it character, and Social Radar). >Fundamentally the character & social cues you give off And here is the problem. People don't give off character and social cues, those are entirely constructs in the perceiving mind. Assuming that people are communicating some thing that they may not be is a recipe for problems. Relagating an oracle to interpret such communications (which may or may not exist) is something that is difficult to comprehend.