4 ms·

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 for

by 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).
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Where are you seeing discomfort in this thread? >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. It's not exactly that such things are not quantifiable, but that PG is unable to express what is being judged other than in the same few, undefined words, at least in this essay. An example of such judgement is never given, it is only asserted that correct judgement can be dispensed by Jessica. That is a magic oracle. No basis is provided for the judgement (other than its source), only the judgement itself. Now, as others have pointed out, I doubt this is exactly how it happens. Most likely Jessica brings to light some contradiction, however, the essay doesn't go into what those contradictions have been, or might be. The essay really only provides the view that the contradictions are blessed and therefore automatically accepted. The concern here is that PG is propagating concepts like "character", "Social Radar", etc., without being able to define what they are. Others may try to replicate this and start their own cargo cult, which has applied its own secret definition of those words, in order to work the magic sauce. What is so hard about the concept/metric being applied here that it can't be put into words?
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    "Where are you seeing discomfort in this thread?" In every one of your responses, for starters. ;-) "Others may try to replicate this and start their own cargo cult, which has applied its own secret definition of those words, in order to work the magic sauce." As I mentioned I would like for more investors to try to behave like YC, even if they're unsuccessful in the attempt. And, there are already many investors cargo culting the YC process. I don't think that's a bad thing; they aren't as successful (I guess TechStars is the nearest analog so far), but they're trying to replicate the winning formula. They may fail in a variety of interesting ways, because it is cargo culting in many cases, but by trying to do things more like YC they're likely making the world a little better for early stage founders. "What is so hard about the concept/metric being applied here that it can't be put into words?" Again, I would guess pg doesn't understand it, and so can't quantify it, but trusts that Jessica's correct more often than not. It doesn't seem like pg was even trying to show everyone how to do what Jessica does, just to clarify that she does many things within YC and that she has often been forgotten in the telling of the YC story; explaining that does not require him to explain how it works.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
>It's not cult-like, but it does seem arbitrary. To be clear, I did not say it is cult-like, only that it is unclear. If YC does operate on a magic oracle, then I might argue that it might be a cult. >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. I'm not sure what it means that a YC interview may be thought of as a job interview, but I share your concerns. I'm also concerned that the essays may encourage such behavior. While the teams of the sort YC are organizing may benefit from such a selection process ("culture fit"), without any logical explanation of the process, the essays essentially encourage people to go out to start their own cults.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
There's no black and white language on this though. The brain is composed of parts that sort of compete and work differently. A simplistic view might say you have a rational brain that thinks in terms of logic and facts. There's another, intuitive or emotional, that detects patterns in raw data from the senses, makes approximate models of the world, and triggers instinctive responses when seeing them again. This is the part of the brain that pulls your hand off the stove before you've recognized it's burning. This is how soldiers have described being compelled to dive to the ground for no reason just before a bullet hits where the head was. An input comes in, matches a model, a response is selected, it's activated, and this all happens in an instant. That intuitive part of the brain represents the vast majority of what we do day to day. Our rational brains activity feeds into it, too. However, cues about people's speech, behavior, emotions... these are naturally all picked up best by the emotional brain. Jessica may have been doing what Paul describes for much of her life with that part of her brain soaking in details she can logically spot and some that are unconscious impressions/feelings. Trial, error, and external observation correct inaccuracies over time if one lets them. At some point, the models in her mind were honed so well that they can spot significant positive or negative traits very reliably. So, there's nothing wrong with Paul's description and it's likely Jessica couldn't fully explain her mental model because she doesn't know it. She will certainly, with introspection, have elaborated out many specifics that she could explain and you could train yourself to work with. However, as I said, this is mostly a subconscious process that can at best only be partly elaborated. Like any black box, you can only assess its reliability by looking at the quality of outputs that come from inputs. There will always be false negatives, false positives, and occasionally WTH!?'s from intuitive decisions about people. What's good in this space is quality of results whose accuracy is consistently good with relatively-low, error rate. Paul's statements indicate her emotional/intuitive brain uses very-effective models of people far as their character goes. The results speak for themselves. That's all you should need. Note: Only way to learn such skills is experience. A job where you deal with lots of people in ways that makes their ethics show can accelerate the process. Still takes years and years, though.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by rudolf0 11y ago

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).

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Where are you seeing discomfort in this thread? >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. It's not exactly that such things are not quantifiable, but that PG is unable to express what is being judged other than in the same few, undefined words, at least in this essay. An example of such judgement is never given, it is only asserted that correct judgement can be dispensed by Jessica. That is a magic oracle. No basis is provided for the judgement (other than its source), only the judgement itself. Now, as others have pointed out, I doubt this is exactly how it happens. Most likely Jessica brings to light some contradiction, however, the essay doesn't go into what those contradictions have been, or might be. The essay really only provides the view that the contradictions are blessed and therefore automatically accepted. The concern here is that PG is propagating concepts like "character", "Social Radar", etc., without being able to define what they are. Others may try to replicate this and start their own cargo cult, which has applied its own secret definition of those words, in order to work the magic sauce. What is so hard about the concept/metric being applied here that it can't be put into words?
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  "Where are you seeing discomfort in this thread?" In every one of your responses, for starters. ;-) "Others may try to replicate this and start their own cargo cult, which has applied its own secret definition of those words, in order to work the magic sauce." As I mentioned I would like for more investors to try to behave like YC, even if they're unsuccessful in the attempt. And, there are already many investors cargo culting the YC process. I don't think that's a bad thing; they aren't as successful (I guess TechStars is the nearest analog so far), but they're trying to replicate the winning formula. They may fail in a variety of interesting ways, because it is cargo culting in many cases, but by trying to do things more like YC they're likely making the world a little better for early stage founders. "What is so hard about the concept/metric being applied here that it can't be put into words?" Again, I would guess pg doesn't understand it, and so can't quantify it, but trusts that Jessica's correct more often than not. It doesn't seem like pg was even trying to show everyone how to do what Jessica does, just to clarify that she does many things within YC and that she has often been forgotten in the telling of the YC story; explaining that does not require him to explain how it works.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

>It's not cult-like, but it does seem arbitrary. To be clear, I did not say it is cult-like, only that it is unclear. If YC does operate on a magic oracle, then I might argue that it might be a cult. >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. I'm not sure what it means that a YC interview may be thought of as a job interview, but I share your concerns. I'm also concerned that the essays may encourage such behavior. While the teams of the sort YC are organizing may benefit from such a selection process ("culture fit"), without any logical explanation of the process, the essays essentially encourage people to go out to start their own cults.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

There's no black and white language on this though. The brain is composed of parts that sort of compete and work differently. A simplistic view might say you have a rational brain that thinks in terms of logic and facts. There's another, intuitive or emotional, that detects patterns in raw data from the senses, makes approximate models of the world, and triggers instinctive responses when seeing them again. This is the part of the brain that pulls your hand off the stove before you've recognized it's burning. This is how soldiers have described being compelled to dive to the ground for no reason just before a bullet hits where the head was. An input comes in, matches a model, a response is selected, it's activated, and this all happens in an instant. That intuitive part of the brain represents the vast majority of what we do day to day. Our rational brains activity feeds into it, too. However, cues about people's speech, behavior, emotions... these are naturally all picked up best by the emotional brain. Jessica may have been doing what Paul describes for much of her life with that part of her brain soaking in details she can logically spot and some that are unconscious impressions/feelings. Trial, error, and external observation correct inaccuracies over time if one lets them. At some point, the models in her mind were honed so well that they can spot significant positive or negative traits very reliably. So, there's nothing wrong with Paul's description and it's likely Jessica couldn't fully explain her mental model because she doesn't know it. She will certainly, with introspection, have elaborated out many specifics that she could explain and you could train yourself to work with. However, as I said, this is mostly a subconscious process that can at best only be partly elaborated. Like any black box, you can only assess its reliability by looking at the quality of outputs that come from inputs. There will always be false negatives, false positives, and occasionally WTH!?'s from intuitive decisions about people. What's good in this space is quality of results whose accuracy is consistently good with relatively-low, error rate. Paul's statements indicate her emotional/intuitive brain uses very-effective models of people far as their character goes. The results speak for themselves. That's all you should need. Note: Only way to learn such skills is experience. A job where you deal with lots of people in ways that makes their ethics show can accelerate the process. Still takes years and years, though.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]