[latencyloser]

Depending on what opinion they pull out, I might tweak that and suggest: "What's the argument against that opinion?"

From what I've seen, a lot of people can rattle off reasons they've heard for why a particular thing is done, but have not deeply considered the opposite side of that opinion and what its benefits may be. Ymmv.

[jaymicha]

Yeah, that's a good followup. It's akin to having a strong counterargument in an academic paper. What I'm going for with the question is an understanding of how the candidate acquires knowledge. Are they generating it themselves via some process like the scientific method? Are they mostly doing that but maybe taking shortcuts here and there by credulously taking on the opinions of trusted sources? Are they throwing all of that overboard and just embracing opinions/received wisdom that are popular or correlate with higher compensation?

The problem I've run into is that it's a pretty easy question to game, if you know the purpose behind asking it; nobody is going to come out and say, e.g., "I think ORMs are dumb because that's what other folks seem to say, and I see those people having high-status/well-compensated jobs, and I'd like some of that too, plz." So maybe it's not a great "weeder" question. /shrug

[TheOperator]

This smacks as unreliable to me because I have a "Devils advocate" sort of mindset REGARDLESS of my actual level of expertise. I find the issue with this sort of mindset is that it makes you better at tearing down other peoples opinions than it does at coming up with a brilliant opinion of your own. This is problematic when you're trying to do something innovative in a crowded saturated field.

[Tainnor]

I have the same attitude, and it's good to try to counteract it a bit, but I have found that this attitude can be a great asset when paired with other people who are a bit more on the optimistic side; as long as both parties are willing to listen to each other.

[patrickmay]

One of my favorite interview questions is "What is your favorite programming language and what would you change about it if you could?" Any answer along the lines of "I wouldn't really change anything." shows a lack of either experience or willingness to think about your tools.

[ASalazarMX]

Or it could be a sign of pragmatism, or having the freedom to choose your tools.

Why wish your tool changed instead of focusing on using it, or something better suited, to produce things?

[Tainnor]

Because every tool has limitations, and even if you think your tool can't/shouldn't necessarily be changed you still need to be aware of its gotchas to use it effectively.