[z2]

Anecdotally, having gone through some selective institutions, I've seen this more than a couple times (though maybe this also says something about myself too...). My unfounded theory is that gatekeepers (e.g. admissions, HR) are inherently fool-able because they don't live the 'greatness' in candidates they seek to find. As a result, while most who get in have traits correlated with future success, others are simply great at advertising having those traits without any real hard-won skills.

I'm curious how someone who is not a physicist can tell if someone has the potential to 'finally solve physics.'

[iandanforth]

In other places YC has described this as bullshitting and their answer is Jessica. They claim (at least publicly) that she significantly shifts the ratio to favor people with real skill over those who are good at advertising it.

http://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/the-social-radar-what-i-...

[JohnJamesRambo]

My first criteria would be show everyone the door that thought they could "finally solve physics."