> confidently they were giving me the wrong answer

This cuts both ways. Interviewers are not by default right. So likewise an interviewer that doesn't know what he's talking and doubles down on it, I'd rather find that out at the interviewer because it points to a dysfunctional organization.

Seems like exactly the sort of "trick" an interviewer might try to use: 'can this person correct someone in authority who is blatantly wrong?'.

Most organisations, it seems, would be served well by people who constructively handle bullshit/misunderstanding from senior people; for some it's absolutely vital.

We will occasionally mix one of these in. We are really looking for folks that can actually say 'no'. In some cases, we will keep tossing out absurd requirement on a 'how would you' project. One that some use is asking for a method that does not exist -- we are hoping they know the language well enough to say 'you mean this or this?' or how they can actually say I don't know, but I know where I could look it up.

It's gone both ways for me. I had one interview where the interviewer got very mad at me, and another where the interviewer was very impressed and was pleased to learn something. I got an offer from the latter company, and accepted.

Mind games, great sign that the company will be fun to work for

Correcting the interviewer and insulting him are two different things.

The difference is whether you aim at correcting the information or whether you are aiming at the interviewer. I want the first one, not the second one.

I had that a few years ago at a very well known digital agency.

The interviewer had on a tshirt that was only fit for rags and did not know anything about the role.

Fast forward to today any interaction with that agency is always like pulling teeth and the lack of knowledge is staggering