杰西卡·利文斯顿

Paul Graham 2015-11-01

杰西卡·利文斯顿

2015年11月

几个月前一篇关于Y Combinator的文章说早期它是一场”独角戏”。可悲的是,读到这种东西很常见。但这种描述的问题不仅是不公平。它还是误导性的。YC最新颖的大部分内容都归功于杰西卡·利文斯顿。如果你不了解她,你就不了解YC。所以让我告诉你一些关于杰西卡的事情。

YC有4位创始人。杰西卡和我某天晚上决定创办它,第二天我们招募了我的朋友罗伯特·莫里斯和特雷弗·布莱克威尔。杰西卡和我日常运营YC,罗伯特和特雷弗阅读申请并与我们一起进行面试。

当我们开始YC时,杰西卡和我已经在约会。起初我们试图对此表现得”专业”,意思是试图隐藏它。回想起来这似乎很荒谬,我们很快就放弃了这种伪装。而杰西卡和我是一对夫妻这是YC成为现在样子的重要原因。YC感觉像一个家庭。早期的创始人大多年轻。我们每周一起吃一次晚饭,前几年由我做饭。我们的第一个建筑曾经是私人住宅。整体氛围与沙山路风险投资公司的办公室惊人地不同,而且完全是更好的方面。有一种每个人走进来都能感受到的真实性。这不仅仅意味着人们信任我们。这是灌输给创业公司的完美品质。真实性是YC在创始人中寻找的最重要的事情之一,不仅因为伪造者和机会主义者令人讨厌,而且因为真实性是最成功的创业公司与其他公司区别开来的主要因素之一。

早期的YC是一个家庭,杰西卡是它的母亲。她定义的文化是YC最重要的创新之一。文化在任何组织中都很重要,但在YC,文化不仅仅是我们构建产品时的行为方式。在YC,文化就是产品。

杰西卡在另一个意义上也是母亲:她有最终决定权。我们作为组织做的一切都先经过她——资助谁,对公众说什么,如何与其他公司打交道,雇佣谁,一切。

在我们有孩子之前,YC或多或少就是我们的生活。工作时间和非工作时间之间没有真正的区别。我们一直在谈论YC。虽然有些企业让它们感染你的私人生活可能会很乏味,但我们喜欢这样。我们创办YC是因为这是我们感兴趣的事情。而我们试图解决的一些问题难度无穷。如何识别好的创始人?你可以谈论这个问题多年,我们确实这么做了;我们仍然在这样做。

我有些事情比杰西卡做得好,她有些事情比我做得好。她最擅长的事情之一是判断人。她是那些具有品格X光视觉的罕见个体之一。她几乎可以立即看穿任何类型的伪造者。她在YC内的绰号是社交雷达,她的这种特殊能力对于使YC成为现在的样子至关重要。你选择创业公司的阶段越早,你越是在选择创始人。后期阶段的投资者可以试用产品并查看增长数字。在YC投资的阶段,通常既没有产品也没有数字。

其他人认为YC对技术未来有一些特殊见解。大多时候我们拥有苏格拉底声称的那种见解:我们至少知道我们一无所知。使YC成功的是能够选择好的创始人。我们认为Airbnb是个坏主意。我们资助它是因为我们喜欢创始人。

在面试期间,罗伯特、特雷弗和我会用技术问题轰炸申请人。杰西卡主要观察。很多申请人可能把她看作某种秘书,特别是早期,因为她是出去迎接每个新群体的人,而且她问的问题不多。她对此不在意。如果人们不注意她,她更容易观察人。但面试后,我们三个人会转向杰西卡问”社交雷达说什么?“[1]

面试时有社交雷达不仅是我们选择会成功的创始人的方式。也是我们选择好人的方式。起初我们这样做是因为情不自禁。想象一下拥有品格X光视觉会是什么感觉。与坏人在一起会让人无法忍受。所以我们拒绝资助那些品格有疑问的创始人,即使我们认为他们会成功。

虽然我们最初出于自我放纵这样做,但结果证明对YC非常有价值。我们在开始时没有意识到,但我们选择的人将成为YC校友网络。一旦我们选择了他们,除非他们做了真正令人发指的事情,他们将成为其中的一部分终生。有些人现在认为YC的校友网络是其最有价值的特性。我个人认为YC的建议也相当不错,但校友网络肯定是最有价值的特性之一。对于这么大的群体,信任和互助水平是显著的。而杰西卡是主要原因。

(正如我们后来学到的,拒绝那些品格有疑问的人可能几乎没有成本,因为创始人的好坏和他们做得如何不是正交的。如果坏创始人成功了,他们倾向于早卖。最成功的创始人几乎都是好人。)

如果杰西卡对YC如此重要,为什么没有更多人意识到这一点?部分原因是我是个作家,作家总是获得不成比例的关注。YC的品牌最初是我的品牌,我们的申请人是读过我文章的人。但还有另一个原因:杰西卡讨厌关注。与记者交谈让她紧张。演讲的想法让她瘫痪。甚至在我们的婚礼上她也不舒服,因为新娘总是注意力的中心。[2]

她讨厌关注不仅仅是因为她害羞,而是因为它干扰了社交雷达。她无法做自己。当每个人都在看着你时,你无法观察人。

关注让她担忧的另一个原因是她讨厌吹嘘。在她做的任何公开可见的事情中,她最大的恐惧(在明显的恐惧即它会糟糕之后)是它会显得炫耀。她说过于谦虚是女性的常见问题。但在她的情况下,这不仅仅是如此。她对炫耀的厌恶如此强烈,几乎是一种恐惧症。

她也讨厌争吵。她做不到;她只是关闭。不幸的是,作为组织的公众人物有很多争吵。

所以虽然杰西卡比任何人都使YC独特,但使她能够做到这一点的品质意味着她倾向于被从YC历史中写出去。每个人都买了PG创办YC而他妻子只是有点帮助的说法。甚至YC的仇恨者也买这个说法。几年前当人们攻击我们没有资助更多女性创始人(比实际存在的多)时,他们都把YC视为与PG相同。承认杰西卡在YC的中心作用会破坏叙事。

杰西卡对人们指责她的公司性别歧视感到愤怒。我从未见她对任何事情如此愤怒。但她没有反驳他们。没有公开。私下有很多脏话。她写了三篇关于女性创始人问题的独立文章。但她永远无法让自己发表其中任何一篇。她看到了这场辩论中的恶毒程度,她退缩了。[3]

这不仅仅是因为她不喜欢争吵。她对品格如此敏感,以至于即使与不诚实的人争吵也让她反感。与点击诱饵记者或推特巨魔混在一起的想法对她来说不仅可怕,而且令人厌恶。

但杰西卡知道她作为成功的女性创始人的例子会鼓励更多女性创办公司,所以去年她做了YC从未做过的事情,雇佣了一家公关公司来为她安排一些采访。在她做的第一次采访中,记者忽视了她对创业公司的见解,把它变成了一个耸人听闻的故事,说某个家伙在她等着在酒吧见面的地方试图与她搭讪。杰西卡感到羞辱,部分是因为那家伙没有做错什么,但更多是因为这个故事把她当作一个仅仅因为是女性而重要的受害者,而不是湾区最有知识的投资者之一。

之后她告诉公关公司停止。

你不会在媒体上听到关于杰西卡取得的成就。所以让我告诉你杰西卡取得了什么成就。Y Combinator根本上是一个人的联结,像一所大学。它不制造产品。定义它的是人。杰西卡比任何人都更精心策划和培育了这群人。从这个意义上说,她字面上创造了YC。

杰西卡比任何人都更了解创业公司创始人的品质。她庞大的数据集和X光视觉在这方面是完美的风暴。创始人的品质是创业公司表现的最佳预测因素。而创业公司反过来又是成熟经济体增长的最重要来源。

最了解成熟经济体增长最重要因素的人——那就是杰西卡·利文斯顿。这听起来不像是一个应该更出名的人吗?

注释

[1] Harj Taggar提醒我,虽然杰西卡问的问题不多,但往往是重要的问题:

“她总是善于嗅出团队或他们决心的任何危险信号,并以解除武装的方式提出正确的问题,这通常揭示了比创始人意识到的更多。”

[2] 或者更准确地说,虽然她喜欢以获得对她所做事情的关注的方式获得关注,但她不喜欢以实时被观看的方式获得关注。不幸的是,不仅对她,而且对很多人来说,你获得多少前者很大程度上取决于你获得多少后者。

顺便说一句,如果你在公共活动中看到杰西卡,你永远不会猜到她讨厌关注,因为(a)她非常有礼貌,(b)当她紧张时,她通过更多微笑来表达。

[3] 像杰西卡这样的人的存在不仅是主流媒体需要学会承认的事情,也是女权主义者需要学会承认的事情。有不成功的女性不喜欢争吵。这意味着如果关于女性的公开对话由争吵组成,她们的声音将被沉默。

有一种格莱欣定律的对话。如果对话达到某种不文明程度,更有思想的人开始离开。没有人比杰西卡更了解女性创始人。但不可能有人听到她坦率地谈论这个话题。她曾经试探性地涉足这个水域,反应如此暴力,以至于她决定”再也不”。

感谢Sam Altman、Paul Buchheit、Patrick Collison、Daniel Gackle、Carolynn Levy、Jon Levy、Kirsty Nathoo、Robert Morris、Geoff Ralston和Harj Taggar阅读本文草稿。是的,还有杰西卡·利文斯顿,她让我删掉的内容出奇地少。

Jessica Livingston

November 2015

A few months ago an article about Y Combinator said that early on it had been a “one-man show.” It’s sadly common to read that sort of thing. But the problem with that description is not just that it’s unfair. It’s also misleading. Much of what’s most novel about YC is due to Jessica Livingston. If you don’t understand her, you don’t understand YC. So let me tell you a little about Jessica.

YC had 4 founders. Jessica and I decided one night to start it, and the next day we recruited my friends Robert Morris and Trevor Blackwell. Jessica and I ran YC day to day, and Robert and Trevor read applications and did interviews with us.

Jessica and I were already dating when we started YC. At first we tried to act “professional” about this, meaning we tried to conceal it. In retrospect that seems ridiculous, and we soon dropped the pretense. And the fact that Jessica and I were a couple is a big part of what made YC what it was. YC felt like a family. The founders early on were mostly young. We all had dinner together once a week, cooked for the first couple years by me. Our first building had been a private home. The overall atmosphere was shockingly different from a VC’s office on Sand Hill Road, in a way that was entirely for the better. There was an authenticity that everyone who walked in could sense. And that didn’t just mean that people trusted us. It was the perfect quality to instill in startups. Authenticity is one of the most important things YC looks for in founders, not just because fakers and opportunists are annoying, but because authenticity is one of the main things that separates the most successful startups from the rest.

Early YC was a family, and Jessica was its mom. And the culture she defined was one of YC’s most important innovations. Culture is important in any organization, but at YC culture wasn’t just how we behaved when we built the product. At YC, the culture was the product.

Jessica was also the mom in another sense: she had the last word. Everything we did as an organization went through her first — who to fund, what to say to the public, how to deal with other companies, who to hire, everything.

Before we had kids, YC was more or less our life. There was no real distinction between working hours and not. We talked about YC all the time. And while there might be some businesses that it would be tedious to let infect your private life, we liked it. We’d started YC because it was something we were interested in. And some of the problems we were trying to solve were endlessly difficult. How do you recognize good founders? You could talk about that for years, and we did; we still do.

I’m better at some things than Jessica, and she’s better at some things than me. 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. The earlier you pick startups, the more you’re picking the founders. Later stage investors get to try products and look at growth numbers. At the stage where YC invests, there is often neither a product nor any numbers.

Others thought YC had some special insight about the future of technology. Mostly we had the same sort of insight Socrates claimed: we at least knew we knew nothing. What made YC successful was being able to pick good founders. We thought Airbnb was a bad idea. We funded it because we liked the founders.

During interviews, Robert and Trevor and I would pepper the applicants with technical questions. Jessica would mostly watch. A lot of the applicants probably read her as some kind of secretary, especially early on, because she was the one who’d go out and get each new group and she didn’t ask many questions. She was ok with that. It was easier for her to watch people if they didn’t notice her. But after the interview, the three of us would turn to Jessica and ask “What does the Social Radar say?” [1]

Having the Social Radar at interviews wasn’t just how we picked founders who’d be successful. It was also how we picked founders who were good people. At first we did this because we couldn’t help it. Imagine what it would feel like to have x-ray vision for character. Being around bad people would be intolerable. So we’d refuse to fund founders whose characters we had doubts about even if we thought they’d be successful.

Though we initially did this out of self-indulgence, it turned out to be very valuable to YC. We didn’t realize it in the beginning, but the people we were picking would become the YC alumni network. And once we picked them, unless they did something really egregious, they were going to be part of it for life. Some now think YC’s alumni network is its most valuable feature. I personally think YC’s advice is pretty good too, but the alumni network is certainly among the most valuable features. The level of trust and helpfulness is remarkable for a group of such size. And Jessica is the main reason why.

(As we later learned, it probably cost us little to reject people whose characters we had doubts about, because how good founders are and how well they do are not orthogonal. If bad founders succeed at all, they tend to sell early. The most successful founders are almost all good.)

If Jessica was so important to YC, why don’t more people realize it? Partly because I’m a writer, and writers always get disproportionate attention. YC’s brand was initially my brand, and our applicants were people who’d read my essays. But there is another reason: Jessica hates attention. Talking to reporters makes her nervous. The thought of giving a talk paralyzes her. She was even uncomfortable at our wedding, because the bride is always the center of attention. [2]

It’s not just because she’s shy that she hates attention, but because it throws off the Social Radar. She can’t be herself. You can’t watch people when everyone is watching you.

Another reason attention worries her is that she hates bragging. In anything she does that’s publicly visible, her biggest fear (after the obvious fear that it will be bad) is that it will seem ostentatious. She says being too modest is a common problem for women. But in her case it goes beyond that. She has a horror of ostentation so visceral it’s almost a phobia.

She also hates fighting. She can’t do it; she just shuts down. And unfortunately there is a good deal of fighting in being the public face of an organization.

So although Jessica more than anyone made YC unique, the very qualities that enabled her to do it mean she tends to get written out of YC’s history. Everyone buys this story that PG started YC and his wife just kind of helped. Even YC’s haters buy it. A couple years ago when people were attacking us for not funding more female founders (than exist), they all treated YC as identical with PG. It would have spoiled the narrative to acknowledge Jessica’s central role at YC.

Jessica was boiling mad that people were accusing her company of sexism. I’ve never seen her angrier about anything. But she did not contradict them. Not publicly. In private there was a great deal of profanity. And she wrote three separate essays about the question of female founders. But she could never bring herself to publish any of them. She’d seen the level of vitriol in this debate, and she shrank from engaging. [3]

It wasn’t just because she disliked fighting. She’s so sensitive to character that it repels her even to fight with dishonest people. The idea of mixing it up with linkbait journalists or Twitter trolls would seem to her not merely frightening, but disgusting.

But Jessica knew her example as a successful female founder would encourage more women to start companies, so last year she did something YC had never done before and hired a PR firm to get her some interviews. At one of the first she did, the reporter brushed aside her insights about startups and turned it into a sensationalistic story about how some guy had tried to chat her up as she was waiting outside the bar where they had arranged to meet. Jessica was mortified, partly because the guy had done nothing wrong, but more because the story treated her as a victim significant only for being a woman, rather than one of the most knowledgeable investors in the Valley.

After that she told the PR firm to stop.

You’re not going to be hearing in the press about what Jessica has achieved. So let me tell you what Jessica has achieved. Y Combinator is fundamentally a nexus of people, like a university. It doesn’t make a product. What defines it is the people. Jessica more than anyone curated and nurtured that collection of people. In that sense she literally made YC.

Jessica knows more about the qualities of startup founders than anyone else ever has. Her immense data set and x-ray vision are the perfect storm in that respect. The qualities of the founders are the best predictor of how a startup will do. And startups are in turn the most important source of growth in mature economies.

The person who knows the most about the most important factor in the growth of mature economies — that is who Jessica Livingston is. Doesn’t that sound like someone who should be better known?

Notes

[1] Harj Taggar reminded me that while Jessica didn’t ask many questions, they tended to be important ones:

“She was always good at sniffing out any red flags about the team or their determination and disarmingly asking the right question, which usually revealed more than the founders realized.”

[2] Or more precisely, while she likes getting attention in the sense of getting credit for what she has done, she doesn’t like getting attention in the sense of being watched in real time. Unfortunately, not just for her but for a lot of people, how much you get of the former depends a lot on how much you get of the latter.

Incidentally, if you saw Jessica at a public event, you would never guess she hates attention, because (a) she is very polite and (b) when she’s nervous, she expresses it by smiling more.

[3] The existence of people like Jessica is not just something the mainstream media needs to learn to acknowledge, but something feminists need to learn to acknowledge as well. There are successful women who don’t like to fight. Which means if the public conversation about women consists of fighting, their voices will be silenced.

There’s a sort of Gresham’s Law of conversations. If a conversation reaches a certain level of incivility, the more thoughtful people start to leave. 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.”

Thanks to Sam Altman, Paul Buchheit, Patrick Collison, Daniel Gackle, Carolynn Levy, Jon Levy, Kirsty Nathoo, Robert Morris, Geoff Ralston, and Harj Taggar for reading drafts of this. And yes, Jessica Livingston, who made me cut surprisingly little.