But you can also discover that (and much more) without pushing. Or at least not by "pushing for the sake pushing".

By like, you know, having a normal conversation. "I'm curious about this project this little repo of yours. Is there some particular reason you chose to use to use / not-use X", for example, where you're asking because you're genuinely curious, as if they actually had something to teach you, perhaps.

If they're legit you'll get a solid answer right away. And if they're not legit... you'll find that out just as fast. But the whole idea is to maintain flow and authenticity. And keep it framed as if you're learning from them, not sitting back and grading everything they say and do on some unseen scale.

And if you're not learning anything? If there's no flow, authenticity? That's when you know it's not going to work out.

Meh. Ultimately people advocate for interview styles they're good at. We all think that we're the type of dev Google wants if only they would interview properly. Give me objective information over "authentic" conversations any day.

The point is, people think their interview styles are "objective" when they aren't.

Especially people in favor of endless whiteboarding and zombie-like quiz-show sessions.

> "I'm curious about this project this little repo of yours. Is there some particular reason you chose to use to use / not-use X"

This kind of question is exactly what I had in mind when I said "pushing to see how you react." I think we agree :)