I'm going back and forth about how smart it is to reply to this seeing as the point I was trying to make was not "Wah YC rejected us because we're different!!!"

I'm going back and forth about how smart it is to reply to this seeing as the point I was trying to make was not "Wah YC rejected us because we're different!!!" For the record, I've always really respected YC for being honest and up front about biases. I find it very refreshing, because most everyone else is too scared of being accused of discrimination to admit it. Everyone has biases. Every VC and angel is going to try to match what's in front of them to something they know when assessing the potential value. I have no doubt that YC will accept a great company that doesn't fit the "type", we spoke to lot of companies like that before we came out to SF. What I'm curious about is YC's habit of "fund without idea" or "fund for new idea" ... how likely is it that someone against the traditional startup type would be given that opportunity? I don't know the answer because there's no data on what ideas people came into YC with, vs what they left with ... but it's an interesting question to me because cognitive biases are an interesting topic to me. The people who think they are smart enough to think their way out of their own biases are usually the ones who fall victim to them the most often. So I've always really seen YC's honesty about this as a GOOD sign, not fodder for criticism.