Sure, but the time limit and pressure of people looking over your shoulder are additional artificial challenges, unnatural stresses.

Perhaps one approach is to allow the interviewee some time to think it over themselves.

I think that part is to test soft skills, being able to work under stress and talk to a person is a part of being a good team mate. Straining both at the same time is a feature, since it is much easier to fake soft skills when you aren't distracted by a technical problem.

It is much more stressful than a real work situation, true, but people work much harder to appear nice and helpful in an interview setting as well so having a harsher test than real world situations to test soft skills seems appropriate.

There was a study conducted some time ago within the past year or so (it had a long discussion thread here, naturally) where it was discovered that when allowed to solve a whiteboard puzzle in a room alone, candidates performed far better. Now obviously communications soft skills must be tested. But perhaps the format can be tweaked so the candidate has some time to crack at a problem on their own prior to be asked to explain it.

The "niceness" of the interviewers is irrelevant. The power differential at stake sparks a survival instinct that leads to stress. (e.g. they literally hold power over your future meal prospects.) Though perhaps in others, it invigorates them with a sense of purpose, cool, and collectedness. Perhaps that is truly the 10x engineer.

Looks like you haven't been through an interview loop lately.

I have. I just overdid the practice the first time and got good enough to place well in international competitions, so to me all these interview problems are really easy, I've never struggled with an interview problem since then (of course since I always pass there isn't much need to do many interviews so I have less data than some others). I know most people wont do that, but you don't need to be nearly as good at this to pass interviews so it should be possible to get good enough to never practice again with modest effort.

My Google interviews was basically me coding up a solution in 10 minutes and explaining what I did and proving it works with runtime etc. Then we spent the rest of the time talking about engineering problems, testing, what I did at previous jobs etc. I am rustier now many years later, but It is still good enough that I don't fail, it might take 20 minutes instead of 10 but there is still room to spare. So the limit is that you are maybe half as fast as I am when I'm rusty, doesn't seem like an overly high bar to me.

So if you're good enough to do well in international competitions, why are you even participating in this discussion? You're clearly an outlier who finds this easy, so you're not in a place to understand the challenges for most people.

Not every great engineer can be good at this stuff to do well in international level competitions, by definition that's a very small group.

I assume you're not on the same level as William Lin or tourist, so it would be like them wondering why you struggle on a particular problem when they can do every one easily.

But it takes like half a year to get that good, if you just practice a bit in college you get there. I'm not sure why people complain so much. People just need to stop memorizing and start practicing how to understand problems instead.

> I assume you're not on the same level as William Lin or tourist, so it would be like them wondering why you struggle on a particular problem when they can do every one easily.

Those have spent more than 10x as much time as me on that though. I got to my level in about 6 months that I spent to pivot from math to programming, that isn't unreasonable effort for anyone, most computer science grads have spent more time learning algorithms than I had.

Your leetcode may be A grade but your empathy, self-reflection, and frankly critical thinking skills need a ton of work.

If you had realized that

* in 90+% of job openings, whiteboard leetcode interviews optimize for the wrong thing, and neither the candidate nor the interviewer should be honored for its inclusion in the process

* live coding exercises are just as much an exercise in psychology - your willingness to submit to unreasonable demands and their willingness to subject you to them

* negative discrimination (i.e. weed out requirements) create biases in your hiring process and ultimately skill gaps in your personnel base

You would potentially be self-aware enough not to post this cavalier and self-aggrandizing comment.

As the person who replied to you says, you have a lot to learn about being a good, empathetic and kind human. I suggest for your own life you take some time to work on that if your technical skills are already good.