> 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.
>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?
This only really shows that Jessica (assuming your implication of who the primary judge was in that instance) may also advocate for particular founders, not just veto some.
>What if the logical argument doesn't exist?
Then lady justice should not make a decision.
>"Character and social cues" just means "information about what the person will do in situations other than the one they're currently in."
The problem is that this is nearly equivalent to tea reading. What theory allows you to accurately predict what I will do, purely based on your observation of me, or even under cursory verbal examination? I don't think that there is one. That people in this thread believe that there could be one is strange.
> This only really shows that Jessica (assuming your implication of who the primary judge was in that instance) may also advocate for particular founders, not just veto some.
Unless you are going to accept everybody or reject everybody, there are going to be valid reasons to advocate for some founders and advocate against others. I don't understand why you insist on focusing on the latter but ignore the former.
> Then lady justice should not make a decision.
So you only make decisions when you have a logical argument that justifies a particular choice? You must lead a very...interesting life.
Also, your use of the word "justice" is not, um, justified. Whether or not someone gets funded by YC is not a matter of justice. Nobody has a right to YC funding.
> What theory allows you to accurately predict what I will do, purely based on your observation of me, or even under cursory verbal examination? I don't think that there is one.
You're right; there isn't one. So what? Do you have a theory that allows you to accurately predict how a food you've never tasted before will taste to you? How a color or material you've never seen before will look to you? How an experience you've never had before will feel? Yet somehow you manage to taste new foods, see new colors and materials, and have new experiences.
You don't need a theory of how something works in order to do it. People accurately threw spears long, long before anyone discovered Newtonian physics. People ate nutritious food and got energy from it long, long before anyone had a theory of how metabolism works. And people make accurate judgments about other people even though nobody has any very good theories of how the human mind works.
> That people in this thread believe that there could be one is strange.
That you believe that you need logical arguments and theories in order to do anything at all is strange.
> I don't understand why you insist on focusing on the latter but ignore the former.
I don't think I have focused on either. I'm primarily just responding to the points others are bringing up. I made my main points in my OP's.
>So you only make decisions when you have a logical argument that justifies a particular choice? You must lead a very...interesting life.
>Also, your use of the word "justice" is not, um, justified. Whether or not someone gets funded by YC is not a matter of justice. Nobody has a right to YC funding.
It's not my use of justice. It is the word the other person in this thread brought in. If you read the thread, you will see that they were making an analogy of this situation to "lady justice". I agree that it is a rather inept analogy.
>People accurately threw spears long, long before anyone discovered Newtonian physics.
And sometimes they failed. The essay treats Jessica as fail-proof.
>That you believe that you need logical arguments and theories in order to do anything at all is strange.
Complete strawman. Show me where I claimed, or even implied as such.
If you wish to convict someone a la the lady of justice, then yes, I do believe you need logical arguments and theories before you can do anything (in regards to punishment).
I don't see that at all. It says she contributed something important to the YC evaluation process that none of the other founders could. It doesn't say she never made any mistakes. Nor does it say that her input was the determining factor in every choice. I think you are reading things into the article that aren't there.
> It's not my use of justice.
You didn't use the word first, but you are treating YC's process as though the word was appropriate. See below.
> If you wish to convict someone a la the lady of justice, then yes, I do believe you need logical arguments and theories before you can do anything (in regards to punishment).
But if you believe the justice analogy is "inept" (your word), why would you buy into someone else's interpretation of YC rejecting an applicant as "punishment"? It's not. As I said before, nobody has a right to YC funding. Their money, their choice. They don't have to give a logical reason; they don't have to give a reason at all. They could choose among applicants by throwing darts, and nobody would have any right to complain.
Of course, choosing by throwing darts wouldn't work well, which is why YC doesn't do it. But what they do do, including the "Social Radar", does appear to work well, even if no one can construct a logical argument for why it does. Since it's their money, and it's working well for them, nobody else has any right to complain that they're being "punished" if YC rejects them. They certainly don't have a right to do so on the basis that there isn't a logical argument backing up YC's choices.
>As I said before, nobody has a right to YC funding. Their money, their choice. They don't have to give a logical reason; they don't have to give a reason at all. They could choose among applicants by throwing darts, and nobody would have any right to complain.
Who is complaining? Obviously YC can do whatever with its money. It doesn't even need to be said, let alone, twice.
>Of course, choosing by throwing darts wouldn't work well, which is why YC doesn't do it. But what they do do, including the "Social Radar", does appear to work well, even if no one can construct a logical argument for why it does.
Right, so as far as anyone on the outside can tell, YC operates on a type of magic oracle.
>You didn't use the word first, but you are treating YC's process as though the word was appropriate.
My only point here is that the essays describe YC as essentially a magic process. The person I was responding to tried to make an analogy to the "lady of justice", while simultaneously making a claim to objectivity (in addition to others). My sentences with containing or referring to "lady" (including my comment about punishment) were only in response to that person's claims. Those sentences contain no information about what I think about YC's process (or rather, it's description in this essay).
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.