4 ms·
"He [pg] said that this time around, YC looked at 'predictors of failure,' not just 'predictors of success.' For example, he said that in the past YC might have
by aashaykumar92 14y ago
"He [pg] said that this time around, YC looked at 'predictors of failure,' not just 'predictors of success.' For example, he said that in the past YC might have chosen a company that had great founders (a predictor of success), but this time it might have filtered that same company out because those founders, while great individually, all hate each other (a predictor of failure)."
The given example implies that YC has chosen founders who don't like each other in the past. Seems remarkably odd and hard to believe IMO. It may have meant to say that the founders seemed LIKELY TO hate each other eventually but if they even disliked each other at the interview, I can't imagine the YC partners being ok with this.
- rdl 14y agoI think he was just giving an easy to understand example which didn't really reflect reality. The problem with predictors of failure, unlike success, is that it's a lot easier to hide them once you know what they are. If you know, for instance, that having founders who when asked say they're doing a startup because they hate having a boss, no non-idiot will give that as an answer when asked, even if they believe it, ruining the predictor.
- danielweber 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_Law
- aashaykumar92 14y agoRight, I agree. And exactly because of this, I hope pg doesn't divulge into what these 'predictors of failure' are from his perspective.
- ryanbrunner 14y agoIt could simply mean that they never spent a lot of time investigating how the founders got along, and so weren't able to notice initially which founders ultimately didn't work together well.