I know I am missing things (I can only read with PG and others write and post) and your version sounds plausible and is much closer to how I imagine reality actually is.<p>However, your claim nearly directly contradicts this essay:<p>&gt;PG: One of the things she&#x27;s best at is judging people.<p>&gt;You: She is ... not at all judgmental ([exception])<p>So, yes, we have this exception where the key value is all in the judgement of individuals (I&#x27;ll put aside the seeming contradictions in this line of thought for now), but the basis of the judgement is never given. Instead all the descriptions just refer to generic &quot;negative character attributes&quot; (my own paraphrasing). There is never a description of what a negative character attribute is (other than the very vague, &quot;faker&quot;), how it was determined that a person possesses such a character, nor how the decisions are followed up to see if the judgments were accurate.<p>The essays also make it sound like Jessica&#x27;s feedback is never given to those who are interviewed. From the descriptions, it sounds like Jessica either gives you a thumbs up or a thumbs down. If you get a thumbs down you just get the boot, but likely no feedback on how your character was judged.<p>&gt;call it a cult if you like<p>I didn&#x27;t call YC a cult. I said that some of the descriptions given in this essay, and others, are vaguely cult-like.