7 ms·

> This is a fair question, but like most things with humans, almost impossible to answer in a definitive way. Which is precisely why you have to be very, very,

by n72 12y ago

> This is a fair question, but like most things with humans, almost impossible to answer in a definitive way. Which is precisely why you have to be very, very, very careful. The matter-of-fact way it was phrased in the blog post didn't give me the impression that there was a whole lot of skepticism regarding her abilities. If one does make such a grandiose claim, it seems like a person conscious that it is a grandiose claim would preface it with a whole lot of qualifiers and such. > There was once an accidental control group though. Jessica missed about half of the interviews and PG, RTM, and Trevor were left to decide on their own. I would estimate that the error rate without her was about 2x-3x as high. I'm curious what the sample-size is and what error-rate actually means. I realize with the control group question and this question, I risk coming off as awfully pedantic.

lazaroclapp 12y ago
> Which is precisely why you have to be very, very, very careful. The matter-of-fact way it was phrased in the blog post didn't give me the impression that there was a whole lot of skepticism regarding her abilities. Speaking about unconscious bias, although this judgement can be valid, would you have said the same about say, a (male?) engineer claiming that "I can often tell good software architecture from bad". Which is a similarly subjective, heuristic-based imprecise classification problem. Not saying you wouldn't, by the way. But I wonder if for plenty of us there are biases in play here as well, since we are talking about skills usually considered less "hard" scientifically (even though they are just as much 'hard skills' as the above example about software architecture [1]). [1] Unless you are in the 0.00001% of developers who deal with formally specified and verified software.
- paul 12y ago
  One of the problems we have in the tech world is that there is a lot of respect for the analytical "left brain" skills (which is great), but a great deal of doubt and skepticism directed towards the more subjective "right brain" skills. I think this is why the "neckbeard" crowd has often dismissed Apple's success as being the product of slick marketing. My opinion is that their success has a lot to do with Job's ability to combine both analytical prowess and creative genius. People who try to be entirely analytical about everything are rarely good founders.
  - n72 12y ago
    I absolutely agree, but that doesn't mean that epistemological rigour can't be brought to bare on the non-analytical side of things. Jessica may in fact have these right brain skills, but that doesn't mean that it's not important to be very, very careful she's not falling prey to a bunch of well documented biases.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    People who try to be entirely analytical about everything are rarely good founders. This is true, but the way people go about the process of sorting out the other elements is a critical part of the analysis (pardon the wording). I think to say such selection is an 'untractable process' strikes me as an oversimplification, as does dismissing it simpley as "something necessarily done by 'gut feel". And I think that this (latter) oversimplification is the root of the issue that is worth discussion. This combination of elements is off-putting. It reaks of being arbitrary rather than well considered. And so its worth more consideration. Consider the following example. We are to judge two Atheltes that have equal technical skills and equally strong character traits (in an objective sense), and yet we may still reject or prefer one or the other based on the fit of their respective skillsets. With the system that is preferred by the (coach, owner, GM) of course being preferred. That preference for style is not a preference for 'character,' (again, in the objective sense) it is simply a ... preference for the style that fits in with the ex ante preferences of the selection principals. (not trying to be sexist and use a sports analogy, but its not really any more useful here to use YC or other VC firms as examples). So, at one layer there is always bias towards style. Say our team runs a fast-paced offense, that is a style-bias that is layered over technical skill and 'objective' character.[1] YC seems to have almost made a philosophical point to form its business around some style-bias...insofar as the 'style' of millenial undergraduates cum entreprenuers in primarily male-dominated technical fiels is going to by nature exclude (of course) a wide variey of styles that clash with the 'core style'.[2] Again, there is nothing with wrong with this style bias. And I mean that both in the sense that there is nothing wrong with selecting for style-complementary attributes (on the one hand), nor is there anything wrong with dimensionalizing style as an explanatory variable. Style in this sense is functional to productivity. The upshot of this is that style is inherently <intuited> before its really comprehended rationally or analytically. This explains why style judgements seem so intuitive and 'snap', but at the same time the phrase 'rigourous sense of style' is not either un-common or innaccurate. While 'objective' character and Style are both attributes subject to (intuitive, snap) judgement it is really best not to conflate the two. I think we are doing the topic a dis-service by not calling out style bias as something distinct from objective character evaluation. ------- [1] What I'll just call 'objective' character here, which has both moral and pragmatic dimensions, but you get the gist, in that its covering things like fundamental integrity, work ethic, and functional social-skills, leadership, altruism, etc). [2] the core style being the subset of those in the target class deemed qualified enough to be alumni of YC.
- n72 12y ago
  > would you have said the same about say, a (male?) engineer claiming that "I can often tell good software architecture from bad". Which is a similarly subjective, heuristic-based imprecise classification problem. I certainly hope so, although I of course can't be sure. I do think I did more than just make a bald assertion, though, by presenting an example of what I would have expected a more skeptical claim about her abilities to look like. In other words, I think I gave a characterization which could apply to either gender. Of course, whether I would have highlighted it to begin with if she were a man is a whole different matter and, like I said, I hope I would have.
  - lazaroclapp 12y ago
    For the record, I agree. We definitely make much better decisions when aware of our biases and we can only be truly confident we understand those biases with rigorous statistical analysis. Such supporting data is usually unavailable, though, particularly at the individual level. My point is only that many claims subject to pretty much the same biases are usually made in HN (about hiring, about software architecture, about understanding technology/futurism) and treated with far less skepticism. That said, I am inclined to agree that the standard should be more skepticism in all cases, rather than less. With the caveat that it might not be practical up to a point. Although, to be honest, I'd love to go into an interview with "I am X deviations above/below the mean of developer productivity in Java software analysis when compared against a sample of Y developers selected by procedure Z, measured by metric W; I am usually more productive working on teams of size n-m (p < 0.01)."
- Cakez0r 12y ago
  Seriously? "At no point have you mentioned gender, but are you sure you're not being subconsciously sexist?" Perhaps n72 should also consider checking his privilege...
  - lazaroclapp 12y ago
    Yes, for sure. I catch myself making dumb assumptions based on stereotypes all the time, and I probably miss far more times than those I am aware of. Gender is sort of an "usual suspect" for this sort of thing, so, why not bring it to the foreground? Not implying malice or fault, just "hey, maybe this well-documented bias is influencing some of your judgments". Which was n72's - largely valid and well made - point as well. In general, being aware of common social biases is a bit like being aware of logical fallacies: pretty useful in debugging your thoughts. In any case, most of my emphasis was on the bias of discounting "soft skills", rather than gender bias.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  I can't speak for the person you're addressing, but I regularly express skepticism about the entire range of judgments in this industry, whether it be skills, culture, personality, or anything else, regardless of the gender of the person expressing said judgments. There isn't a single adjudication of skill that is free of external context that introduces what is effectively a bit of subjective chaos. That includes judgments about something seemingly as straight-forward as "fizzbuzz", all the way through to what constitutes "good" software design.

by n72 12y ago

lazaroclapp 12y ago

> Which is precisely why you have to be very, very, very careful. The matter-of-fact way it was phrased in the blog post didn't give me the impression that there was a whole lot of skepticism regarding her abilities. Speaking about unconscious bias, although this judgement can be valid, would you have said the same about say, a (male?) engineer claiming that "I can often tell good software architecture from bad". Which is a similarly subjective, heuristic-based imprecise classification problem. Not saying you wouldn't, by the way. But I wonder if for plenty of us there are biases in play here as well, since we are talking about skills usually considered less "hard" scientifically (even though they are just as much 'hard skills' as the above example about software architecture [1]). [1] Unless you are in the 0.00001% of developers who deal with formally specified and verified software.

paul 12y ago
One of the problems we have in the tech world is that there is a lot of respect for the analytical "left brain" skills (which is great), but a great deal of doubt and skepticism directed towards the more subjective "right brain" skills. I think this is why the "neckbeard" crowd has often dismissed Apple's success as being the product of slick marketing. My opinion is that their success has a lot to do with Job's ability to combine both analytical prowess and creative genius. People who try to be entirely analytical about everything are rarely good founders.
- n72 12y ago
  I absolutely agree, but that doesn't mean that epistemological rigour can't be brought to bare on the non-analytical side of things. Jessica may in fact have these right brain skills, but that doesn't mean that it's not important to be very, very careful she's not falling prey to a bunch of well documented biases.
- 001sky 12y ago
  People who try to be entirely analytical about everything are rarely good founders. This is true, but the way people go about the process of sorting out the other elements is a critical part of the analysis (pardon the wording). I think to say such selection is an 'untractable process' strikes me as an oversimplification, as does dismissing it simpley as "something necessarily done by 'gut feel". And I think that this (latter) oversimplification is the root of the issue that is worth discussion. This combination of elements is off-putting. It reaks of being arbitrary rather than well considered. And so its worth more consideration. Consider the following example. We are to judge two Atheltes that have equal technical skills and equally strong character traits (in an objective sense), and yet we may still reject or prefer one or the other based on the fit of their respective skillsets. With the system that is preferred by the (coach, owner, GM) of course being preferred. That preference for style is not a preference for 'character,' (again, in the objective sense) it is simply a ... preference for the style that fits in with the ex ante preferences of the selection principals. (not trying to be sexist and use a sports analogy, but its not really any more useful here to use YC or other VC firms as examples). So, at one layer there is always bias towards style. Say our team runs a fast-paced offense, that is a style-bias that is layered over technical skill and 'objective' character.[1] YC seems to have almost made a philosophical point to form its business around some style-bias...insofar as the 'style' of millenial undergraduates cum entreprenuers in primarily male-dominated technical fiels is going to by nature exclude (of course) a wide variey of styles that clash with the 'core style'.[2] Again, there is nothing with wrong with this style bias. And I mean that both in the sense that there is nothing wrong with selecting for style-complementary attributes (on the one hand), nor is there anything wrong with dimensionalizing style as an explanatory variable. Style in this sense is functional to productivity. The upshot of this is that style is inherently <intuited> before its really comprehended rationally or analytically. This explains why style judgements seem so intuitive and 'snap', but at the same time the phrase 'rigourous sense of style' is not either un-common or innaccurate. While 'objective' character and Style are both attributes subject to (intuitive, snap) judgement it is really best not to conflate the two. I think we are doing the topic a dis-service by not calling out style bias as something distinct from objective character evaluation. ------- [1] What I'll just call 'objective' character here, which has both moral and pragmatic dimensions, but you get the gist, in that its covering things like fundamental integrity, work ethic, and functional social-skills, leadership, altruism, etc). [2] the core style being the subset of those in the target class deemed qualified enough to be alumni of YC.
n72 12y ago
> would you have said the same about say, a (male?) engineer claiming that "I can often tell good software architecture from bad". Which is a similarly subjective, heuristic-based imprecise classification problem. I certainly hope so, although I of course can't be sure. I do think I did more than just make a bald assertion, though, by presenting an example of what I would have expected a more skeptical claim about her abilities to look like. In other words, I think I gave a characterization which could apply to either gender. Of course, whether I would have highlighted it to begin with if she were a man is a whole different matter and, like I said, I hope I would have.
- lazaroclapp 12y ago
  For the record, I agree. We definitely make much better decisions when aware of our biases and we can only be truly confident we understand those biases with rigorous statistical analysis. Such supporting data is usually unavailable, though, particularly at the individual level. My point is only that many claims subject to pretty much the same biases are usually made in HN (about hiring, about software architecture, about understanding technology/futurism) and treated with far less skepticism. That said, I am inclined to agree that the standard should be more skepticism in all cases, rather than less. With the caveat that it might not be practical up to a point. Although, to be honest, I'd love to go into an interview with "I am X deviations above/below the mean of developer productivity in Java software analysis when compared against a sample of Y developers selected by procedure Z, measured by metric W; I am usually more productive working on teams of size n-m (p < 0.01)."
Cakez0r 12y ago
Seriously? "At no point have you mentioned gender, but are you sure you're not being subconsciously sexist?" Perhaps n72 should also consider checking his privilege...
- lazaroclapp 12y ago
  Yes, for sure. I catch myself making dumb assumptions based on stereotypes all the time, and I probably miss far more times than those I am aware of. Gender is sort of an "usual suspect" for this sort of thing, so, why not bring it to the foreground? Not implying malice or fault, just "hey, maybe this well-documented bias is influencing some of your judgments". Which was n72's - largely valid and well made - point as well. In general, being aware of common social biases is a bit like being aware of logical fallacies: pretty useful in debugging your thoughts. In any case, most of my emphasis was on the bias of discounting "soft skills", rather than gender bias.
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
I can't speak for the person you're addressing, but I regularly express skepticism about the entire range of judgments in this industry, whether it be skills, culture, personality, or anything else, regardless of the gender of the person expressing said judgments. There isn't a single adjudication of skill that is free of external context that introduces what is effectively a bit of subjective chaos. That includes judgments about something seemingly as straight-forward as "fizzbuzz", all the way through to what constitutes "good" software design.