Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jessica Livingston (2015)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 202 posts

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#71

Post by cm2012 »

alexpotato wrote: post #37

One of the things she's best at is judging people. She's one of those rare individuals with x-ray vision for character. She can see through any kind of faker almost immediately. Her nickname within YC was the Social Radar, and this special power of hers was critical in making YC what it is A manager at a past job also had a similar "x-ray vision". During interviews, she would always sit in with another interviewer an…

Basically anyone who can do this kind of thing falls into INFP or INFJ in Myers-Briggs. They're just incredible at reading people. Based on the article I'd be shocked if Jessica wasn't an INFP.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#72

Post by tomhallett »

morley wrote: post #45
ianmcgowan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be argumentative, but how did someone get hired if 7 out of 8 interviewers said "pass"? What's the point of having 7 interviewers if only one of them gets to decide? Definitely agree with your point that some people have a gift for this kind of thing, so just genuinely curious how the 7 of 8 thing worked.

I've read before -- though right now I can't think of the source -- that if a group of interviewers are weakly against a candidate but one is strongly for them, you should trust the instincts of the person who's "strongly for." When hiring, I'd probably have that than a room of people who are weakly for a candidate on the basis that you'd rather have a person who's great at one thing than someone who's okay at everyt…

Are there any books on this topic that anyone would recommend? As a manager, this is where I struggled the most - naturally i am someone who strives to be a consensus builder, but it's hard to know when to put your thumb on the scale vs not.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#73

Post by p0pcult »

cutenewt wrote: post #68
alexpotato wrote: post #37

One of the things she's best at is judging people. She's one of those rare individuals with x-ray vision for character. She can see through any kind of faker almost immediately. Her nickname within YC was the Social Radar, and this special power of hers was critical in making YC what it is A manager at a past job also had a similar "x-ray vision". During interviews, she would always sit in with another interviewer an…

Fascinating story! Your x-ray vision manager: what (interview) questions or criteria did she use?

Not op, but

>she would always sit in with another interviewer and never ask any questions of the candidates. She would just observe.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#74

Post by slushh »

dpflan wrote: post #59
alexpotato wrote: post #37

One of the things she's best at is judging people. She's one of those rare individuals with x-ray vision for character. She can see through any kind of faker almost immediately. Her nickname within YC was the Social Radar, and this special power of hers was critical in making YC what it is A manager at a past job also had a similar "x-ray vision". During interviews, she would always sit in with another interviewer an…

Devil's Advocate: what are the counter examples for her x-ray vision for character?

Not necessary a counter example but with all the Reddit drama right now, I would like to know her opinion on Steve Huffman and if he is fulfilling expectations.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#75

Post by eastbound »

carlysagan wrote: post #60
eastbound wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It sounds to me like you are admitting that women often provide the crucial ideas and then are dis-credited. What direction would any work take without the initial idea? Lol. Even when a female has the idea and does all the work (ah-hem), a man will come along, steal the idea, claim it as his own, and suddenly be the one with a multi-million dollar seed deal or Nobel Prize or whatever. That is the reality that I have…

You have a selective vision of the world if that is your conclusion. Plenty of examples of the opposite, I can’t convince you with just one example, so you’ll have to take a friendlier look at men, and once you find the pattern where men aren’t recognized for a particular deed, you’ll find it everywhere and in as great quantity as women.

Concerning Marie Curie, maybe if we could agree on another example than one 120 years ago, that would revive the proof. As far as I’m concerned, every time someone cites Marie Curie, it rather confirms that we haven’t been doing that for the last 120 years, otherwise you’d cite a contemporary example. But the problem of contemporary examples, is that we’re here to analyze them, and they don’t generally hold the scrutinity. I don’t know for Marie Curie, I wasn’t there.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#76

Post by hgsgm »

p0pcult wrote: post #73
cutenewt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating story! Your x-ray vision manager: what (interview) questions or criteria did she use?

Not op, but >she would always sit in with another interviewer and never ask any questions of the candidates. She would just observe.

Maybe the secret to being a good evaluator is to not do a distracting different task at the same time.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#77

Post by scarnz »

cm2012 wrote: post #71
alexpotato wrote: post #37

One of the things she's best at is judging people. She's one of those rare individuals with x-ray vision for character. She can see through any kind of faker almost immediately. Her nickname within YC was the Social Radar, and this special power of hers was critical in making YC what it is A manager at a past job also had a similar "x-ray vision". During interviews, she would always sit in with another interviewer an…

Basically anyone who can do this kind of thing falls into INFP or INFJ in Myers-Briggs. They're just incredible at reading people. Based on the article I'd be shocked if Jessica wasn't an INFP.

Fascinating. I've never heard this about INFP/F types, though I am one. Can you describe more about your experiences or point me to some examples?

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#78

Post by joshu »

mkmk wrote: post #4

While we're on the topic, she's also the author of this wonderful book of founder interviews, which is illuminating even 15ish years after publication. I highly recommend it if you haven't come across it yet: https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Work-Stories-Startups-Early/...

I was interviewed for that book! Good stuff.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#79

Post by upsidesinclude »

carlysagan wrote: post #43

This is honestly infuriating. Why wouldn't you realize that all of the characteristics of Jessica are why women are pushed out of the start-up world from the very first day they start? Why wouldn't you realize from this experience that women are the ones providing all the reasons and ideas for why a startup might be successful, but then are swept under the rug as a wife/family member/outside consultant/etc?

You should downvote your own comment so that the comments which promote her work and career are above yours.

The article mentions specifically in the note about backlash and vitriol that feminists need to give room for someone like her to 'exist' in the public eye.

There is also the important fact that this was written by her husband and founding partner.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#80

Post by mywittyname »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #69
asveikau wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am extremely skeptical of someone who claims this ability in themselves or others. What this tells me is that someone is misjudging a lot of circumstances very confidently. You just can't understand people on a snap judgment, there are too many outliers. Imagine if we applied this kind of thinking in courts. We would convict a lot of innocent people. We wouldn't feel that we need to wait for all the facts and evide…

> snap judgment What this manager did isn't practically different from what all interviewers do, except the particular manager wasn't the specific target of the usual manipulations[0] candidates will do to seem better. The manager is likely to have a better understanding of how the candidate bullshits (or if they do) when they're not the target of the bullshit. [0] Used as a descriptor; e.g. "manipulating" someone to…

> except the particular manager wasn't the specific target of the usual manipulations[0] candidates will do to seem better.

There's merit to this argument.

Consider people who get scammed or catfished -- it's obvious to an outside observer. You're less likely to fool yourself when you have no skin in the game.

Post reply on HN