(Only this past week I had experiences that challenged my assumptions about certain demographics (seniors) and how I would expect they would behave, and how they actually behaved. The lesson I learned was -- don't assume, always collect real data)
The white-male interviewer power dynamic has some basis in reality (I've experienced it occasionally, not all the time), but its effect on my interview performance may be less than 10%? (to throw out a number). I find I'm much more affected -- maybe 90% -- about (1) my competence in the subject matter and (2) how well practiced I am (for instance, I know the theory for a great many subjects but am unpracticed at some of them, so I tend to stumble and lack ease when it comes to demonstrating my subject matter knowledge in real time).
For different people, those percentages shift, and I believe in a way that is not obviously or necessarily correlated with their demographic (psychological conditions, yes, but also depends on which ones -- some don't affect anxiety). But all I have is anecdata so I'm not able to provide strong evidence one way or another so this is just my two cents worth -- and I do mean this in good faith.
My basic point here is that even 1% would be too much. If an interview process creates any inherent disadvantage for some groups, I'd say it deserves serious scrutiny. BTW, by "inherent" I mean beyond what can be addressed by bias training and such. That can enable interviewers to conduct any type of interview in as fair and kind a way as possible, but not to change the interview structure itself. If the structure is the problem, training isn't the solution. I think the in-person white-board algorithm interview is unavoidably weighted toward factors that have nothing to do with likely on-the-job performance, and thus should be avoided.
Going back to whiteboarding: I don't like whiteboarding myself, but to be fair it does measure certain dimensions quickness-on-feet, memorization abilities, ability to exude presence, fluency in language, etc. While these are laudable abilities on their own, I agree they might not correlate with overall on-the-job performance (but it depends on the job).
I guess "job performance" is this amorphous latent variable y that is correlated with a bunch of direct predictors x which we can measure, u which we can't measure, so we use proxy variables z to stand-in for them: y = f(x, u, z).
The worry is that some candidates, who may be bad for the job, but just happen to be good at these proxy dimensions (or train for them) might get the job; on the flip side, we may exclude certain candidates who are potentially good for the job but perform badly at the proxy dimensions. Whiteboarding measures the proxy dimension z.
Edit: oh look, an article on HN's front page on this very issue:
I'm sorry, excuse me? Are you saying that non-minority, non-women don't suffer anxiety? Your parent comment certainly seems to suggest that. Which, at a minimum, is flat out wrong. Educate yourself[0]. And then zoom out and ask yourself why it's not only permissible, but often lauded, to so flippantly say what you just said.
[0] - https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guideline...
To be fair, OP did say "That effect is magnified for anyone who is unlike their interviewers"
But, I do agree some evidence from OP would help their claims.
I wouldn't be surprised if minorities experience more anxiety, on average, in situations like an interview, though. I think it's established that imposter syndrome is more frequently encountered for example but it's too late here to go digging for evidence :)
No, and I doubt anyone would have read it that way in good faith.
And I'm not writing this as praise for your comment...
Is any of that even controversial enough to require citation? How many Psychology or Sociology 101 textbooks should I cite? It's easy enough for those who don't feel this kind of anxiety themselves to brush it off, but for those who are less fortunate all those magnifiers can create an anxiety level that's quite debilitating.