<i>&gt; PG relates that even when the other partners are all go, Jessica has an amplifier that finds the negatives and blows it up?</i><p>He also gave at least one example (Airbnb) where they didn&#x27;t like the idea, but funded them because they liked the founders. Who do you think was the primary judge of &quot;liking&quot; the founders in that case?<p><i>&gt; 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.</i><p>What if the logical argument doesn&#x27;t exist? You seem to be ignoring that possibility completely. We have to make choices all the time with insufficient information; in fact the situations in which we actually can articulate a logical argument for doing or not doing something are rare. The fact that you appear to be very uncomfortable with this does not make it false.<p><i>&gt; People don&#x27;t give off character and social cues, those are entirely constructs in the perceiving mind.</i><p>&quot;Character and social cues&quot; just means &quot;information about what the person will do in situations other than the one they&#x27;re currently in.&quot; All of us do give off this information, whether we like it or not. Everything you say and do is information about the internal processes that determine what you say and do, and therefore is information about what those internal processes will output in other circumstances. It&#x27;s certainly not complete information, but complete information is unattainable anyway.<p><i>&gt; Assuming that people are communicating some thing that they may not be is a recipe for problems.</i><p>People aren&#x27;t consciously communicating character and social cues; in fact they might be consciously trying to hide them. That doesn&#x27;t mean they can&#x27;t be valid information.