You make a fair point, but an interview is not solely about programming skill. It's also about being a co-worker. And the question "what does this person do in X situation", where X is "they don't know the answer to something they need to know'" is highly relevant. So there may be a better way to go about it, but the parent's desire is reasonable.

The deal is when you’re interviewing me we’re _not_ co-workers. You hold all of the cards and decide my fate.

A big part of interviewing candidates well is breaking down that dynamic. There are many ways of doing it - I get up on the whiteboard first and write out my problem, and stay there until they’ve explained themselves and I need to get back to my notes so I don’t forget stuff. I phrase questions like “I need help implementing this function...” or “how are we going to solve this edge case”.

I don’t think either side of a tech interview is easy. The problem is only one side is evaluated.

> ... The problem is only one side is evaluated.

I'm not sure I agree here. Granted I work for quite a small company, so it's pretty different than working at a company with a significant reputation to help candidates make decisions. But when I interview candidates I'm very aware that they are evaluating me whilst I'm evaluating them.

I actually think this is a good thing. It incentivizes me to make the interview a more pleasant experience, and perform it in such a way that it feels collaborative, like a real work situation, and not as standoffish as some interviews can be. That said, we still do ask hard technical questions solved on whiteboards or in code, and setting them up in such a way that the candidates feel comfortable asking questions on things they don't know / are unclear about is definitely challenging.

To be honest, something I think we (as in the software community at large) lose sight of some times is how unique and challenging performing interviews is. We see stories like this pretty frequently, and we're used to the idea that being interviewed is a fairly distinct skill, orthogonal to what we usually perform in our day to day work life. Something that's talked about a lot less frequently (understandably, more of us are getting interviewed than performing them) is that interviewing others is also a separate skill, and one that really isn't practiced or honed enough in my opinion.

> The deal is when you’re interviewing me we’re _not_ co-workers.

Not yet, but the purpose of the interview is to figure out whether we should be. (And I disagree that it is one sided; this whole topic is about an interviewee's evaluation of the process.)

> The problem is only one side is evaluated.

I tell all of my friends that it's your job to interview the interviewer as well. The company is about to get 8 hours of your day for the next few years. figure out how you can figure out if it's the right place for you.

Obviously, if you are in dire straights and you need to take what you can get, sure, but the questions are still relevant and will prepare you for whatever poo you might find yourself stepping into.

It's not quite the same as a trick question (which I agree you should avoid). He's not looking for the interviewee to say "I don't know" to any particular question. The correct answer is a perfectly acceptable answer too. The unacceptable answer is to make up bullshit, which is precisely what he's trying to filter out.

Except that some interviewers say that when they hear "I don't know" it's a sign that the interviewee gives up easily and extrapolates that they will give up easily when they encounter problems while working. The point is that as an interviewee you're supposed to "know" an unfair amount of knowledge and have incredible spontaneous algorithmic skills to boot (the interviewer picks 1 question and has the answer while the interviewee anticipates and is expected to competently answer the set of all possible questions). What ends up happening is everyone crams for interviews by rote memorizing common system design and coding questions. From the interviewee's side it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario when OP asks his trick question. This is similar to hazing where initiates are unsure of the correct way to conduct themselves because they are being judged by some vague, perhaps intentionally withheld ideal, standard, or cultural archetype. I'd imagine disenfranchised groups would disproportionately 'fail' this question, as they are already insecure of their belonging in tech culture

In the process you are pushing the candidate to the breaking point and eliminating any confidence they may have had in their abilities. They will end up demoralized and most likely fail the following interviews if they're the nervous sort. If they're smart, they'll bid you goodbye and you end up with a black eye reputation.

Any interview (of mine) is a conversation - they're not something you pass or fail - it's just a way for a potential employer and employee to get to know one another so they can make better decisions. Nobody won, lost, passed or failed. The interview is just there to provide more information to determine if the potential employer and employee would fit well together.

If I were in an interview that was presented as a zero sum game I would walk out too.

> Nobody won, lost, passed or failed

I mean, like, yeah they did. They either got the job or they did not.

The interview is there to provide more information about a possible relationship. Winning an interview is like winning a date (assuming you want a relationship with the other person.).

A special kind of dating where money are involved.

If I were the interviewee and discovered it was a poor fit, I’d consider the lack of an offer or the opportunity to refuse one a win

Granted, this is tech, so finding a paying job isn't too terrible. But with a lot of other industries [0] it takes a long time and a lot of effort to get employment. I'd say for most US workers, even in today's market, not getting the job is a loss.

[0] which is not really super relevant to this discussion, I know.

> nervous people who are very self conscious in an interview setting may respond completely differently than they would if they were asked the same question on the job by the coffee machine.

This part is crucial. If an interviewee is pushed to the brink but doesn't say, "I don't know," that does not imply they will not say, "I don't know," once they've secured a position.

It’s not a trick question. Saying I don’t know is a perfectly acceptable answer. The follow up should be questions to clarify or reduce complexity. I interview a lot and this is something I expect out of candidates.

Saying "I don't know" is an accurate answer.

The ability to ask meaningful questions is a big part of any programming job. And (in my opinion) harder to learn than any particular technology.

Maybe you could give the critical replies to your comment some consideration. There seem to be many interviewers who abuse their temporary power over candidates by freestyling a psychological excercise, and brag about it in threads like this.

In a way forcing the other party to give up with an "I don't know" is humiliating, and graciously allowing this answer doesn't make things better. You'd put yourself above the other person.

Imagine you'd interview someone you truly respect, a luminary of Open Source walks in. How would you go about the interview then?

I think a great interviewer can make the interview an enlightening and wholesome experience for both parties - while easily identifying the exact qualifications and the fit of the candidate.

I thought I had given consideration. I do not regard "I don't know" as giving up. Giving up would be not finding the answer eventually. I certainly don't find myself "under" some other person if they know the answer to a particular technical question.

As for interviewing a luminary of open source what would be the difference? I imagine they (much like everyone else) don't know lots of things and are probably comfortable saying so. Their answers to how they would go about finding an answer would probably be wonderful.

Fair enough.

Of course it depends a lot on the overall tone of the interview, and as I read more I'm sure you're doing it very well.

You can call it whatever you want, but I think if a candidate would be humiliated by saying "I don't know" in an interview, that's a strong negative signal. Saying "IDK" and reading the docs, googling it, or asking for help is at least half of the job.

"I don't know" is something that developers encounter weekly, if not daily. There's nothing humiliating about acknowledging that there are things one doesn't know, whether in our daily jobs or in an interview.

Saying "I don't know" like this in an interview scenario is nearly impossible for most candidates and only serves to humiliate rather than prove their abilities.

If you want to see them ask questions, give a half explanation of the problem at hand instead and guide them to ask more detailed technical questions.

Be an ally, not an adversary, and you will find talent better than if you push.

> Saying "I don't know" like this in an interview scenario is nearly impossible for most candidates and only serves to humiliate rather than prove their abilities.

I don't think this is true only in interviews though. I have worked with people who can't seem to admit they don't know something and they're difficult to work with.

It's completely fine if you can't do something. What's not fine is that you fail to communicate it to those around you and create false expectations.

That being the case, I think it's fair to score a candidate negatively if they aren't able to say they don't know something.

It’s really not - as someone whose done 100s of interviews for a brand name tech company I don’t see this as a problem. The goal being for candidate to indicate their lack of knowledge but work through it. As an engineer you will encounter problems you don’t know how to solve. Pretending you know and bullshitting is a red flag.

There are hundreds of ways to do this without intentionally tilting the candidate into failure later. As an interviewer you have absolute authority in the room -- don't abuse it and destroy the candidate.

I think you are misunderstanding my point by indicating that interviewer's shouldn't abuse their power.

To be specific, I do a lot of things up front in an interview to help the candidate. The most important is informing them that they should treat technical exercises as a team exercise where we are teammates working together. Furthermore, I declare that there is no penalty for my assistance during the interview. The idea is for us to work together to solve a problem, my interest is in how they think and work through the problem. Furthermore, I explicitly tell them for discussion on prior experience and technical facets of interview that they are welcome to indicate they do not have an answer to my question or are unsure what's next.

All of this combined creates a very pleasant experience which is an important part of my goal as an interviewer. I'm not trying to embarrass people, though I am trying to make a informed hiring decision which is a very expensive endeavor for my company. Therefore, beyond letting candidate enjoy themselves, my main focus is to ensure that I have sufficient confidence to hire or be willing to walk away due to lack of conclusive data.

You are proving the OPs point: they are looking for people where "I don't know" is acceptable in collaborating with others, not for people where saying "I don't know" is considered a failure or humiliating. If someone is humiliated being asked a question they don't know the answer to, then they aren't a culture fit.

As Jeff Bezos says, the older he gets, the more he realizes he doesn't know.

Most people have no issue with saying "I don't know." I've worked with people that can't say "I don't know" - they are incredibly toxic.

> Saying "I don't know" like this in an interview scenario is nearly impossible for most candidates and only serves to humiliate rather than prove their abilities.

with hacker news so utterly convinced that employers have literal powers of life and death over their employees, when do you expect the potential employee to regain the ability to tell their employer that they don't know? after they've quit their previous job and moved across the country? a week after that? six months? maybe after they've got some kids?

It’s not a trick question. I am expecting them to answer the questions honestly. If they know the answer, go ahead and answer correctly. If not, don’t pretend.

I don’t want to hire someone who isn’t going to admit the limits of their abilities, for whatever reason. Could be smugness or lack of confidence, either way it’s a bad signal.

its a trick question, period. The question is formulated with the expectation that it cant be answered, even if there is a small chance to answer it right.

its not a bad signal. to be honest its the smartest thing to do (like guessing on the GRE), especially since most people ask questions they expect the right answer too.

the only bad signal I see is in you. I would wager to say, in most situations in life, don't play tricks, just ask the question you really want answered.