3 ms·

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 dou

by 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.
vijayp 12y ago
Of course the irony is that much of Apple's dominance has been cemented by their tyrannically analytical optimization of all aspects of their supply chain!
zBard 12y ago
"Neckbeard" crowd ?
waterlesscloud 12y ago
For the record, my first thought was that Jessica might be more or less normal in her ability to judge character, it's just that in comparison the metaphorical "neckbeard" members of the rest of the team are bad at it.

by paul 12y ago

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.

vijayp 12y ago

Of course the irony is that much of Apple's dominance has been cemented by their tyrannically analytical optimization of all aspects of their supply chain!

zBard 12y ago

"Neckbeard" crowd ?

waterlesscloud 12y ago

For the record, my first thought was that Jessica might be more or less normal in her ability to judge character, it's just that in comparison the metaphorical "neckbeard" members of the rest of the team are bad at it.