Live data from Hacker News

Jessica Livingston (2015)

paulgraham.com

91–100 of 202 posts

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#91
post #77
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

https://www.16personalities.com/personality-types is a pretty good (and free) resource to get started in this field.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#92

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…

I feel like anyone who fits the categorization (so called INFP/F types[0]) are unlikely to the ones to tell you. That's why people who claim to have this ability almost never do. Its not in the nature of someone who can to really talk about it this way. I'd also argue that courts are definitely not the place to have this. There's good reasons why this is likely to fail in a stressful setting (convicting someone of a…

100% right. My wife is an INFP and in 16 years of being together, she has not been wrong about someone once, even when I vehemently disagreed with her at the time. But she would never say she's good at reading people to a stranger lol.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#93
post #27

> No one understands female founders better than Jessica. But it's unlikely anyone will ever hear her speak candidly about the topic. She ventured a toe in that water a while ago, and the reaction was so violent that she decided "never again." I wonder how much wisdom has been lost bc of this effect. I feel like society needs to create a much larger incentive for thoughtful people to share their wisdom. Today, you st…

Doesn't the phrase 'pearls before swine' refer basically to this situation? Basically I don't think it's something you can do in the presence of a thing like twitter because of the participants whose goal isn't communication. Which is fine. The wisdom isn't lost, its just not as widely available.

> Which is fine. The wisdom isn't lost, its just not as widely available.

It's not fine though. Our political and economic spheres have been run by the swine for too long, and the planet's back is breaking. The second order effects of only giving the brash and thick-hided a voice in society are everywhere, causing permanent harms.

Let's start making space for the wise and sensitive types, and make pearls abundant.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#95
post #90
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's a lot of sources out there on this topic, but Psychology Junkie is way better than I would have expected from the name. Two articles that mention these traits: INFJ: https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/understanding-infj-intuitio... INFP: https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/the-infp/

Thanks, I appreciate the links.

I happen to be in a new leadership role and in the middle of a hiring decision.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#96
post #27

> No one understands female founders better than Jessica. But it's unlikely anyone will ever hear her speak candidly about the topic. She ventured a toe in that water a while ago, and the reaction was so violent that she decided "never again." I wonder how much wisdom has been lost bc of this effect. I feel like society needs to create a much larger incentive for thoughtful people to share their wisdom. Today, you st…

I doubt the violent reaction was based on anything other than gender.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#97
post #83

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…

There are people that can do this, that are "social radars." It's rare, but I've seen one and it's mindblowing to observe. 100% hit rate. (that doesn't mean we should do it in courts to convict people)

And I'm saying a 100% hit rate is not possible. Your ability to determine an accurate numerical hit rate is also very difficult to impossible.

If we treat this kind of thing as an oracle rather than admit that it's a flawed heuristic, even a good heuristic being ultimately flawed, I think that's pretty dangerous. One has to be extremely humble at the task of evaluating people, because it's difficult and error-prone.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#98

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…

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.

Depends on why they "pass" - it might be "They're solid, but not a good fit for my specific team". Assuming each interviewer is focused on their specific group and the skills they actually use and need day-to-day.

Different groups requiring different skillsets certainly isn't unusual.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#99

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…

> e.g. there were times where 7 out of 8 interviewers said "pass", she said "hire" and she was always right.

Just noting: that situation around that assessment can affect the outcome.

For example, hired person appreciates the opportunity/faith extended to them, or otherwise picks up on the need to rise to the occasion.

Or a manager or other staff sees/treats the person differently because of the circumstances (e.g., gives the hire more guidance because they think the hire will need it, wants the hire to succeed because a founder has blessed them, or just sees the person more favorably because they trust the opinion of someone else).

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#100
post #71

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.

False. First, one person’s Myers-Briggs score can drift over time. Any of those letters can flip; being an “empath” is learnable. Second, people like Jessica and other evaluators do a lot (both reported and unreported) to set and move the goalposts that define success.

What this article and discussion shows is less of a “some people are magic” phenomenon and more of a “a lot of evaluators and leaders have huge blindspots” phenomenon. Most all panels bias towards false negatives; there’s a lot of support for having too narrow a perspective on any given candidate.

Post reply on HN