There is a concept called the Penrose triangle, also known as the impossible triangle. It is a figure that appears to be a solid object, but in reality it cannot exist in three-dimensional space because its geometry is inconsistent.
In a similar way, the founder who possesses all six ideal qualities may not actually exist. However, within the hexagon formed by these six qualities, there is always a point that represents a feasible balance among them. 🤠
Also everyone is unique and not everything is known nor can be tested for. So I tend to think of these things has hiring the green vs getting the ball in the hole in one ⛳
I once met a behavioral economist who spoke to me about overconfidence bias in solo founders. Despite extremely high failure rates, many keep going convinced they’re cut from a different kind of tree.
And maybe they are.
I admire founders deeply. The odds are stacked against them from day one. Statistics don’t favor them. Structure doesn’t favor them. Stability doesn’t favor them.
And this reminds about human nature, those who succeed especially has this extreme confidence that people might even call delusion but it's this uncommon confidence in themselves and what they're building even when the odds are against them.
This is quite fascinating and very true re grit. When I interviewed Chris Barton of Shazam, my favourite quote of his was, “The number one determinant of entrepreneurial success is persistence. If you are not prepared to go to superhuman levels that are beyond rationality to realize your dream, then your chance of finding success is virtually zero.” https://medium.com/swlh/the-story-of-shazam-the-startup-days-6bccebd17d84
I totally get his quote for certain. When I look back and reflect on my own journey - it's insane. What on earth was I thinking? Complete wipe out was ever present for a couple of decades 😵💫
This reminds me of an experience I had back in 2022, persistence is something rare that if built can be of great leverage to any founder, the ability to keep working on something even when the odds are all against is often a guarantee for success
This reminds me of an experience I had back in 2022, persistence is something rare that if built can be of great leverage to any founder, the ability to keep working on something even when the odds are all against is often a guarantee for success
Very true. Like hiring the best people from the company that was forced to pivot because they weren't the market leader. Where every dollar added in ARR took 10x the hustle compared to the category king 💪 different kinda talent found there
The founders who hold their vision most rigidly are often the most compelling in a room. That same rigidity is what makes them brittle when the route needs to change. I've learned to treat extreme conviction about the how as a yellow flag. The founders worth backing know why they're building at a level that survives contact with reality. The rest is just a plan.
What the assessment cannot measure is the physical foundation they run on.
Grit erodes under chronic fatigue. Self-belief becomes fragile when the nervous system is dysregulated. Execution slows when recovery is poor. Leadership presence disappears when someone is running on empty.
The psychological architecture of a great founder sits on top of a physical one. Most founders never get that layer assessed.
I know that the founder assessment plays a major role, but I have never seen any of them using a survey. This makes me wonder if AI could be leveraged to collect empirical data from recorded conversations with a founder, reference interviews, and other relevant sources (recordings, LinkedIn, etc.) to derive a DNA analysis with greater precision than a survey.
On 3/4, I completed and submitted the Founder DNA profile. As of 3/7, I have not received a response email. However, the Founder DNA Profile I submitted was from another copy of the link provider to a different commentor on your LinkedIn post. When I saw your "like" to my comment without the actual link attached to it, I just thought to use the immediately preceding Founder DNA Profile link provided to that commenter. I entered my name, beginning and completing the assessment.
I saw that after completing the profile assessment, you provided the link in your response to my comment. My question is, should I do the profile assessment again using my link? I don't want to create the impression that I had a dry run at it. However, I believe my responses would be consistent. Thanks for your help, and apologies for the confusion.
I've messaged the team at Yareta.ai - you should have your email as it's usually 24 hrs but the demand has been unprecedented - there is also a support email. But if you've completed the questionnaire and added your email then you'll be registered in their system under your email and you should be getting your results.
Hi Chris, I enjoyed completing your quiz last night, it was a tough stretch but thanks :) I was looking forward to the results. Do you send these via email ? Cheers Neil
This is fascinating, but it also makes me wonder what happens when investors start treating a 135-question psychometric as a de facto gatekeeper for “fundable psychology.” At what point does screening for these six traits risk converging founder archetypes around a narrow, VC-optimized profile and filtering out the weird, non-obvious builders who don’t test well but still bend markets?
I think the VC market is so attritional as so few hit winners that the real power is actually with the few winning founders. Whats certain is it a very niche form of financing that is not right for 99.5% of Founders. So it's entirely possible you're right but equally the market of founders is moving very very quickly as are the technologies underneath
self-belief isn't about feeling confident. it's about moving forward when you don't feel confident. best founders doubt more because they're actually looking at the data.
I think this is super interesting - the magic wand issue. Any self diagnosis tool is subject to self sabotage. Unbelievable founders don't self sabotage so for those taking the test gaming the answers or aren't self critical they'll get what they need out of it - false score/hope. But for founders who going 10 rounds with themselves they'll learn something and maybe make different decisions based on what they take from it. I know you understand this. I've not taken Cambridge research, a founders teams years of work and created a silver bullet. As always it's what the user takes from the knowlege & experience that matters. Shit in. Shit out. As we say. Thanks for the challenge 🤓
Totally agree, Alexander. I use behavioral linguistics, avoids all the bias and gaming problems inherent in self-reports. newsletter.innatelanguage.com
There is a concept called the Penrose triangle, also known as the impossible triangle. It is a figure that appears to be a solid object, but in reality it cannot exist in three-dimensional space because its geometry is inconsistent.
In a similar way, the founder who possesses all six ideal qualities may not actually exist. However, within the hexagon formed by these six qualities, there is always a point that represents a feasible balance among them. 🤠
Also everyone is unique and not everything is known nor can be tested for. So I tend to think of these things has hiring the green vs getting the ball in the hole in one ⛳
Very sharp idea! 💡
I once met a behavioral economist who spoke to me about overconfidence bias in solo founders. Despite extremely high failure rates, many keep going convinced they’re cut from a different kind of tree.
And maybe they are.
I admire founders deeply. The odds are stacked against them from day one. Statistics don’t favor them. Structure doesn’t favor them. Stability doesn’t favor them.
Until they make it.
The odds of being an outlier are indeed very slim. Very very slim
And this reminds about human nature, those who succeed especially has this extreme confidence that people might even call delusion but it's this uncommon confidence in themselves and what they're building even when the odds are against them.
This is quite fascinating and very true re grit. When I interviewed Chris Barton of Shazam, my favourite quote of his was, “The number one determinant of entrepreneurial success is persistence. If you are not prepared to go to superhuman levels that are beyond rationality to realize your dream, then your chance of finding success is virtually zero.” https://medium.com/swlh/the-story-of-shazam-the-startup-days-6bccebd17d84
I totally get his quote for certain. When I look back and reflect on my own journey - it's insane. What on earth was I thinking? Complete wipe out was ever present for a couple of decades 😵💫
haha - what's the famous quote, "Starting a business is like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute and building it on the way down."
I'm familiar with that quote for sure 😵💫
This reminds me of an experience I had back in 2022, persistence is something rare that if built can be of great leverage to any founder, the ability to keep working on something even when the odds are all against is often a guarantee for success
This reminds me of an experience I had back in 2022, persistence is something rare that if built can be of great leverage to any founder, the ability to keep working on something even when the odds are all against is often a guarantee for success
Interesting way to break this down, Chris.
This made me think of something an exited founder turned investor said to me on Millennial Masters.
He looks closely at whether someone has had to come through real adversity/obstacles to get where they are.
You learn a lot about someone from that, especially in a job where things stop being easy very quickly.
Very true. Like hiring the best people from the company that was forced to pivot because they weren't the market leader. Where every dollar added in ARR took 10x the hustle compared to the category king 💪 different kinda talent found there
This also reminds me about human nature, a person ability to adapt and push through obstacles regardless of what odds are is rare.
The founders who hold their vision most rigidly are often the most compelling in a room. That same rigidity is what makes them brittle when the route needs to change. I've learned to treat extreme conviction about the how as a yellow flag. The founders worth backing know why they're building at a level that survives contact with reality. The rest is just a plan.
Great framework. Those six traits matter.
What the assessment cannot measure is the physical foundation they run on.
Grit erodes under chronic fatigue. Self-belief becomes fragile when the nervous system is dysregulated. Execution slows when recovery is poor. Leadership presence disappears when someone is running on empty.
The psychological architecture of a great founder sits on top of a physical one. Most founders never get that layer assessed.
this is great, I love it. you claim @chriss that VC's use this or a similar framework to analyse founders?
A small minority are optimising around traits but for all VCs it's the biggest part of the discussion as the Founder(s) is the bet
I know that the founder assessment plays a major role, but I have never seen any of them using a survey. This makes me wonder if AI could be leveraged to collect empirical data from recorded conversations with a founder, reference interviews, and other relevant sources (recordings, LinkedIn, etc.) to derive a DNA analysis with greater precision than a survey.
I think this is infinitely doable ! Also how politics and statecraft is being done. Modeling likelihood of certain outcomes
I do this at www.innatelanguage.com, you can read about it at newsletter.innatelanguage.com. I'm a computational linguist, and you're right on it!
On 3/4, I completed and submitted the Founder DNA profile. As of 3/7, I have not received a response email. However, the Founder DNA Profile I submitted was from another copy of the link provider to a different commentor on your LinkedIn post. When I saw your "like" to my comment without the actual link attached to it, I just thought to use the immediately preceding Founder DNA Profile link provided to that commenter. I entered my name, beginning and completing the assessment.
I saw that after completing the profile assessment, you provided the link in your response to my comment. My question is, should I do the profile assessment again using my link? I don't want to create the impression that I had a dry run at it. However, I believe my responses would be consistent. Thanks for your help, and apologies for the confusion.
I've messaged the team at Yareta.ai - you should have your email as it's usually 24 hrs but the demand has been unprecedented - there is also a support email. But if you've completed the questionnaire and added your email then you'll be registered in their system under your email and you should be getting your results.
Thank you, Chris!!
Hi Chris, I enjoyed completing your quiz last night, it was a tough stretch but thanks :) I was looking forward to the results. Do you send these via email ? Cheers Neil
Normally the email results take 24 hrs
Yes. You'll get an email within 24hrs. The demand has been unprecedented so hopefully it's within but you'll get it the next day for sure ✅
This is fascinating, but it also makes me wonder what happens when investors start treating a 135-question psychometric as a de facto gatekeeper for “fundable psychology.” At what point does screening for these six traits risk converging founder archetypes around a narrow, VC-optimized profile and filtering out the weird, non-obvious builders who don’t test well but still bend markets?
I think the VC market is so attritional as so few hit winners that the real power is actually with the few winning founders. Whats certain is it a very niche form of financing that is not right for 99.5% of Founders. So it's entirely possible you're right but equally the market of founders is moving very very quickly as are the technologies underneath
self-belief isn't about feeling confident. it's about moving forward when you don't feel confident. best founders doubt more because they're actually looking at the data.
Getting up when all is lost 💙
Identity changes are necessary during a business lifetime.
Founders' maturity is the real currency to ensure transitions are successful.
We believed as founders we and the business needed to transform every 18mths - so I definitely believe what you say here Matteo
Curious if/how has the tool been protected from compounding gender and other bias in who makes it as a founder / is invested in?
Then who is founding Airopic the next-gen startup that could destroy AI in seconds. I mean bodyguards for Ai.
I'm trying to visualize AI body guards - it's a challenge 🤓
I think this is super interesting - the magic wand issue. Any self diagnosis tool is subject to self sabotage. Unbelievable founders don't self sabotage so for those taking the test gaming the answers or aren't self critical they'll get what they need out of it - false score/hope. But for founders who going 10 rounds with themselves they'll learn something and maybe make different decisions based on what they take from it. I know you understand this. I've not taken Cambridge research, a founders teams years of work and created a silver bullet. As always it's what the user takes from the knowlege & experience that matters. Shit in. Shit out. As we say. Thanks for the challenge 🤓
Have a great weekend
Totally agree, Alexander. I use behavioral linguistics, avoids all the bias and gaming problems inherent in self-reports. newsletter.innatelanguage.com