5 ms·

>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

>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.

throwawaymaroon 11y ago
I think you're right, but I think it's not as big a deal as you might think. It all comes down to social acceptability. Socially acceptable metrics like "Character" and "social cues" and "goodness" can be reliably received in terms more like "Thinks like me," "probably won't hurt me," "makes me feel good." But why shouldn't those things be evaluated? If you're going to build a strong sense of team, you might need to risk rejecting people for completely unfair social reasons, up to and including a basic sense that someone's just 'uncool'! It doesn't require Jessica to be a magic oracle for her to be the one that voices discomforts or phrases them in a socially palatable way. Technical evaluators might not be comfortable saying "this person just had a bad vibe," but if someone can point out a socially acceptable reason for the vibe-- "seemed more concerned about money than the idea," for instance--the vibe can be acted upon with no loss of face for the technical evaluator. Given that some of these subjective feelings can be valid warning signals for the worst kind of behavior, it's hard to be upset if the 'social radar' enables the rejection of otherwise good and competent people that just rubbed the group the wrong way. So the argument goes: those people will still, by their merit, go on to find success. I think it's hard to argue that Jessica and Paul haven't enjoyed their position as arbiters of their special club. I couldn't find it, but there's an article somewhere about the funding of Reddit where Jessica's patronization of the Reddit 'boys' gives me this sickly feeling. I think it was uncouth for Jessica to write about her radar so openly. But I'm not particularly upset that it was being relied upon. (Now, if it were me, I'd feel real gross building a family around the fact that people are auditioning to have some of my money to borrow. But that's just me.)
pdonis 11y ago
> PG relates that even when the other partners are all go, Jessica has an amplifier that finds the negatives and blows it up? He also gave at least one example (Airbnb) where they didn't like the idea, but funded them because they liked the founders. Who do you think was the primary judge of "liking" the founders in that case? > 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. What if the logical argument doesn't exist? You seem to be ignoring that possibility completely. We have to make choices all the time with insufficient information; in fact the situations in which we actually can articulate a logical argument for doing or not doing something are rare. The fact that you appear to be very uncomfortable with this does not make it false. > People don't give off character and social cues, those are entirely constructs in the perceiving mind. "Character and social cues" just means "information about what the person will do in situations other than the one they're currently in." All of us do give off this information, whether we like it or not. Everything you say and do is information about the internal processes that determine what you say and do, and therefore is information about what those internal processes will output in other circumstances. It's certainly not complete information, but complete information is unattainable anyway. > Assuming that people are communicating some thing that they may not be is a recipe for problems. People aren't consciously communicating character and social cues; in fact they might be consciously trying to hide them. That doesn't mean they can't be valid information.

throwawaymaroon 11y ago

I think you're right, but I think it's not as big a deal as you might think. It all comes down to social acceptability. Socially acceptable metrics like "Character" and "social cues" and "goodness" can be reliably received in terms more like "Thinks like me," "probably won't hurt me," "makes me feel good." But why shouldn't those things be evaluated? If you're going to build a strong sense of team, you might need to risk rejecting people for completely unfair social reasons, up to and including a basic sense that someone's just 'uncool'! It doesn't require Jessica to be a magic oracle for her to be the one that voices discomforts or phrases them in a socially palatable way. Technical evaluators might not be comfortable saying "this person just had a bad vibe," but if someone can point out a socially acceptable reason for the vibe-- "seemed more concerned about money than the idea," for instance--the vibe can be acted upon with no loss of face for the technical evaluator. Given that some of these subjective feelings can be valid warning signals for the worst kind of behavior, it's hard to be upset if the 'social radar' enables the rejection of otherwise good and competent people that just rubbed the group the wrong way. So the argument goes: those people will still, by their merit, go on to find success. I think it's hard to argue that Jessica and Paul haven't enjoyed their position as arbiters of their special club. I couldn't find it, but there's an article somewhere about the funding of Reddit where Jessica's patronization of the Reddit 'boys' gives me this sickly feeling. I think it was uncouth for Jessica to write about her radar so openly. But I'm not particularly upset that it was being relied upon. (Now, if it were me, I'd feel real gross building a family around the fact that people are auditioning to have some of my money to borrow. But that's just me.)

pdonis 11y ago

> PG relates that even when the other partners are all go, Jessica has an amplifier that finds the negatives and blows it up? He also gave at least one example (Airbnb) where they didn't like the idea, but funded them because they liked the founders. Who do you think was the primary judge of "liking" the founders in that case? > 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. What if the logical argument doesn't exist? You seem to be ignoring that possibility completely. We have to make choices all the time with insufficient information; in fact the situations in which we actually can articulate a logical argument for doing or not doing something are rare. The fact that you appear to be very uncomfortable with this does not make it false. > People don't give off character and social cues, those are entirely constructs in the perceiving mind. "Character and social cues" just means "information about what the person will do in situations other than the one they're currently in." All of us do give off this information, whether we like it or not. Everything you say and do is information about the internal processes that determine what you say and do, and therefore is information about what those internal processes will output in other circumstances. It's certainly not complete information, but complete information is unattainable anyway. > Assuming that people are communicating some thing that they may not be is a recipe for problems. People aren't consciously communicating character and social cues; in fact they might be consciously trying to hide them. That doesn't mean they can't be valid information.