&gt;Its a filter that ignores the positive and amplifies the negative - someone who blows things out of proportion.<p>Isn&#x27;t this basically the feature that is being claimed here? PG relates that even when the other partners are all go, Jessica has an amplifier that finds the negatives and blows it up? The only thing left to determine would be whether the proportion was correct. Unfortunately, the aftermath of the explosions aren&#x27;t really discussed in these essays, so we can only speculate.<p>&gt;Think lady justice with the scales - taking a whole picture before making judgment, and avoiding bringing in one&#x27;s own motivations, emotions, or concerns in the process. Lady justice&#x27;s blindfold is the symbol for this objectivity.<p>It sounds fine in theory, but unless this lady can put down the logical argument that connects the premises to the conclusions, and which can be argued against, I wouldn&#x27;t want such a lady deciding justice for anyone.<p>&gt;Lady justice&#x27;s blindfold is the symbol for this objectivity.<p>I think any time objectivity is being symbolized, you need to be very, very careful. As far as we can tell, true objectivity cannot be attained. Fetishizing is dangerous.<p>&gt;There are likely ways you can get feedback on these kinds of things - friends or coaches - but ultimately its not the kind of thing that one studies directly for. If it were, everyone would come in an actor, rather than themselves (and lets face it, the psychopaths would be the winners). You can try all you want to study how to project the right microexpressions and whatever but that&#x27;s endlessly complex and you&#x27;ll lack sufficient data to optimize, not least of which is because every person and situation is unique. This may go against some notions of fairness but lack of visibility and feedback is just part of the domain of social interactions.<p>I agree. The problem is that this essay essentially describes YC&#x27;s process as being exactly this situation. Jessica sits and analyzes the situation, then brings down judgement and it is decided. No details given (so, one must assume that the decision could be based on such things as microexpressions, though PG labels it character, and Social Radar).<p>&gt;Fundamentally the character &amp; social cues you give off<p>And here is the problem. People don&#x27;t give off character and social cues, those are entirely constructs in the perceiving mind. Assuming that people are communicating some thing that they may not be is a recipe for problems. Relagating an oracle to interpret such communications (which may or may not exist) is something that is difficult to comprehend.