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

111–120 of 202 posts

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#111

Post by retrac »

no_wizard wrote: post #89
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…

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…

You're probably on to something. I frequently get impressions like, good Lord, can't you tell this person is schmoozing? Or that they're trying to hide their agitation? Same with people prone to black and white thinking. And it comes after just a minute or two. And it's often right. (Though I constantly doubt myself and possible confirmation bias.) I wouldn't say it's preternatural but better than most people, apparently. I almost never vocalize these impressions. Because the reasons why are inexplicable, and few have any reason to trust my gut instinct over any other person's.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#112

Post by Jarwain »

neilv wrote: post #99
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…

> 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.,…

I mean yes, but not everyone succeeds despite best efforts, and a good social radar might imply detecting whether they Will rise to the occasion or not

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#113

Post by dragonwriter »

bolangi wrote: post #106
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…

> I am extremely skeptical of someone who claims this ability in themselves or others. Have you never heard of someone being a good judge of character?

> Have you never heard of someone being a good judge of character?

I’ve heard of people claiming to be a good judge of character, or claiming other people are, usually without evidence and as an excuse for actions which involve disregarding objective indicia of character as it relates to the decision at hand, and very often as an excuse specifically for making decisions that seem to amount to disregarding objective criteria to favor their own and/or a generally-socially-favored race, ethnicity, subculture, etc.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#115

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#116

Post by stcroixx »

asveikau wrote: post #63
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…

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…

Agreed, this sound like astrology for the Stanford set. Baffling.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#117

Post by lotsofpulp »

no_wizard wrote: post #89
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…

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…

Why is Myers Briggs being referenced when it has zero substance to back it up? I thought it was common knowledge that pop psychology stuff was garbage, at least amongst this website’s readers.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#118

Post by cm2012 »

neilv wrote: post #110
cm2012 wrote: 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.

I've tested as INFP and INTJ. I'm not going to deny the Introvert theory part. The rest of it, I don't know how seriously to take it. I haven't studied the academic literature, and the occasional pop-psych writing about it bears some similarities to astrology writing (e.g., appeal to being special, being deep, having powers, navel-gazing, etc.).

If you're not sure about the tests, you can use this quick framework in this comment to help you find your letters.

Extraverted (E) vs Introverted (I)

“E” generally means gaining energy from other people, while “I” means people drain your batteries. This one is not always immediately obvious for people. In general "E"s talk more when with groups of people and "I"s think more. Even though I spend a lot of time at home with my wife, I'm an E - I get energy from social interactions.

Sensing (S) vs Intuiting (N)

This is about how you process new information. S people see what's actually in front of them - they think and talk more in specifics. In general, S types are better at detail oriented work.

N types intuit things, so they sometimes aren't great at focusing at what's in front of them, but are great at coming up with ideas and next steps based on what they see.

Feeling (F) vs Thinking (T)

Everyone feels and everyone thinks. A good way to judge this is people's reactions to situations. Feelers react with empathy first, thinkers react with problem solving first.

Very basic example: Your friend comes in with their arm bleeding. Is your very first reaction?

"Oh no! What happened?" - Feeler

"You should go to the hospital!" or "Let me get something to wrap that", etc etc.

In general feelers are more likely to feel empathy for someone, even if they they think they are dead wrong or disagree with them.

Judging (J) vs Perceiving (P)

This is about how you make decisions. And it has nothing to do with the dictionary definitions of judging and perceiving.

Some defining traits of Js:

Achieving the goal is more important than the process.

You are comfortable making decisions with limited information.

For Ps:

Being true to your moral system is more important than achieving the goal.

You prefer to collect more information before making decisions.

The side effect of these two things means Js tend to have steadier lives with more commitment, while Ps tend to have a broader range of experiences and a bigger variety of life experiences.

---

Lastly, the temperaments:

ExxJ - Organizes people

IxxJ - Keeps systems running, also good at absorbing and teaching information.

ExxP - Collectors of experiences, achievements, pleasures, etc.

IxxP - Being true to your convictions

---

Now, people who study function stacks are going to shit on this comment, saying the letters don't mean anything, its all about functions like Extraverted Thinking, etc. But I find these letter rules make a great shortcut for 97% of people.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#119

Post by YetAnotherNick »

InitialLastName wrote: post #108
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #67

I don't doubt Jessica is good at reading people, but I found out during hiring people is that it is the easiest/cheapest skill to hire. I am honestly curious about why pg skipped the most frequently asked question: Would Jessica be close to this level of successful if she was not his wife? Also I would be very curious to know about female founders that Jessica selected. According to [1], companies with at least 1 fem…

I see: Combined Valuation (all companies): $600B Combined Valuation (Companies with women founders): $45B Still unbalanced, but closer to 15:1 as opposed to 49:1. That's also a comparisons that is totally useless without the base rate. If half the companies had female founders, it might be valid to say "why are the companies with women raising at a lower rate" but I'd be willing to bet that the application pool is he…

I said 10% valuation for companies with at least 1 female founder compared to no female founder. And in that list, I could see something like 5:1 for company with at least female founder to company with all female founder. That is how I arrived with all female:all male ratio of 2% if we ignore mixed gender founder companies.

Also I am not arguing whether female founders experience discrimination or not, I am just arguing YC's female ratio is not significantly higher than other VC's which pg hints at due to Jessica.

Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)

#120

Post by neilv »

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…

This sounds sorta like one of my observations about someone I worked with: she'd go into an enterprise prospect/relationship meeting, and come out with better insights than the other people from our team. And the insights rang true.

(And it was unfortunate that she wasn't listened to more, because a higher-ranking person would more often miss cues about customer thinking, or would come out of a meeting seeming to feel a gist biased more towards what they wanted it to be.)

For that skill/quality and others, I later tried to recruit her as a startup CEO.

Post reply on HN