[scott_paul]

When I interview a candidate, I'm explicitly and intentionally looking at how they respond to stress, how (if) they're able to say "I don't know", and how they communicate complicated ideas. I open with soft-balls to put them at ease and get them opened up and talking. Then dive deeper into technical things. All the questions are technical, but the main answer I get is how they communicate, how they relate to people, and how they deal with the unknown.

If you understand that a technical interview assesses anxiety, and you roll that into the plan, if you know what the game is, then you're 1/2 way to a win-win already.

[vmception]

yeah, but these anti-patterns are completely different everywhere. your insight isn't a signal at all, when the next interviewer isn't saying what they mean and evaluating only correct answers.

[scott_paul]

I'm not commenting on how anyone else does it, or saying that there aren't bad patterns out there. I'm telling the room about a strategy I found that lets me twist the bad into good.

[vmception]

I understood that, I want to highlight to others how there needs to be standardization or a completely different approach, as this is all a crapshoot and wasting countless work hours.

[grumple]

Assessing anxiety is probably illegal since it’s a psychological diagnosis. Just saying, if that’s the goal that’s both messed up and legally questionable.