This is commonly referred to as Yerkes-Dodson Law [1]. This is typically where one's performance, whilst performing a task and being watched while doing said task, will result in decreased output compared to if the individual was not being watched at all.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerkes%E2%80%93Dodson_law

Thanks for the formal name, I always knew it just as the "I can't go while you're watching" syndrome.

Sounds like the interview would effectively filter out candidates that would not be a good fit for a job that is mostly corresponding with people.

IMHO, to the contrary: crafting one's message is a valid process for effective async communication.

Crafting a message well is important but more often, fast writing and decision making skills are more important. Why do you think so many professors and managers write extremely short, almost informal sounding replies. If you're an excellent writer who takes 20 minutes typing up a single email and then need another 20 minutes to destress because emails in formal settings make you anxious then you probably aren't a good fit for that type of job.

> Why do you think so many professors and managers write extremely short, almost informal sounding replies.

Because they're positioned with higher status in a hierarchy?

If a student makes a mistake, the professor merely points out the mistake.

If a professor makes a mistake, a student will at least be uncertain whether a mistake was made, and will have to go to much greater length to point out the mistake.

Short and fast emails could just as well be a sign of someone who is bad at communicating.

Not if the job entails writing 50 of those per day and you can’t manage more than 5

Exactly. I have a friend who was a directional drill operator, and then moved to white collar work, and was super slow with writing letters. I think it was a him problem more than a blue collar work problem though.

That's a fair point, however these 50 would mostly fall in 5 or 10 categories.

A few templates, a couple of text expanders, and a brief mentoring in soft skills, active listening, and written comms would resolve any major issues.

Granted, Gaussian distribution guarantees that the above wouldn't cover all cases.

Sounds like that type of job might not be a good fit for you? You’d always be anxious!

It might be the fact that people are monitoring how the sausage is made with the explicit purpose of judging that process.

But when working with people in the normal job, nobody is watching them type they just eat the sausage.

I can relate. I don’t have anxiety generally with work and have been praised on my interactions with customers. But I feel anxious during interviews because they are actively trying to judge me.

It's my opinion that interview anxiety is almost entirely unrelated to: how well someone works with a team; how well someone handles an emergency; and how well someone can related to and work with clients. Source: I've been repeatedly told, over decades, that I'm good or great at all those things—and I enjoy all of those things, for the most part, even when they're tough—but interviews make me anxious as fuck and I hate them (though I'm actually good at the talking parts—I just tend to lock up when someone is watching me work and judging me). It's a totally different thing.

In my experience that is a lot less true with customer facing jobs or jobs where there is an element of external facing presentation (like the note above). The candidate is going to get the same treatment from every crowd or customer.

If someone is doing an internal facing role, especially engineering, it may only come up during things like team stand ups, or certain types of design reviews, or not at all. So less of a problem.

It would not, and I wouldn’t apply in the first place! But I could do it if I had to.

I don't know about the GP, but if I interviewed you I would see that as a strong point in favour of you. It sounds like you proof read your emails and edit the things that aren't well composed. It's hard to find people who do that.

Then again, maybe I'm biased because I write the same sentence multiple times in quick succession. And I go back and re-write previous sentences if they don't flow well with what's coming next. But when people have watched me do it, they have only expressed wonder and admiration over it, never negative feelings.

What doesn't work is when someone starts verbally editing my first draft the instant I've typed it out. Yes, I know it's bad -- it's the first draft. I just needed to get something on the page to see where I should go next.

Sounds a lot better to me than live coding on a white board.

I would take the coding on a white board instead of answering fake mails to be honest. But the job doesn't sound too attractive if correspondence is mostly with customers. Internal mails are way more informal and quicker to write.

Yeah, it's a super relevant skill and something that doesn't go away (for me) in the interviewing environment (the way technical skills sometimes can).

My guess is that they're looking to see if you complete it in a reasonable time period, your initial draft is at least in the right ballpark (anyone experienced in tech support, team supervisorship, project management, etc can answer common emails almost by reflex) and it appears to be you, and not someone helping you.

I would imagine that, if anything, seeing you pause after an initial draft, adjust some grammar and tone, pause...even re-write a sentence or paragraph - and then say "done"...would impress, not detract.

this sounds closer to pairing, which IS a real-world skill & experience for many jobs, than your typical white-board programming nonsense.

As far as your technique, drafting then editing down is a totally legit way to write. I wish more people did that!

The cure for performance anxiety is to do more performing until it goes away.

Or to find a position in which such performance is not required.

Adaptation only goes so far. More training won't turn a dwarf into a basketball centre, or a heavyweight bodybuilder into a champion marathoner. Sometimes you've got to work with what you have, both in terms of abilities and limitations.

Intellectual and psychological limitations may be less manifestly visible but are no less real.

Performance anxiety goes away with repetition. I have plenty of personal experience with that and so do many others I know. This is not a special skill. You don't have to be a champion. You just get used to doing the performance and the anxiety goes away.

Just like if you're nervous about driving on the freeway, or flying in an airplane.

Heck, I remember buying my first phone answering machine. I froze up repeatedly trying to record the message. After a while, that problem went away.

Only if your anxiety is reasonable in the first place and your emotional regulation is normal.

I've been driving more than 20 years and almost none of the anxiety I experience because of it ever went away. If I know the roads already it's a little better, but every single day I have to power through the anxiety to get to where I need to be going. It doesn't get better.

Hotels give me anxiety even though I actually lived in a hotel for six months.

My husband developed anxiety later in life doing things he has done for years.

What you're talking about is just normal human emotions, when people refer to "performance anxiety" they are usually referring to an anxiety disorder. Crippling anxiety that doesn't spontaneously resolve.

If you're in your 20s and experiencing this, perhaps.

If you're in your 50s and it's still a constant problem, quite possibly not.

Again, people aren't infinitely malleable, and don't all fit in standard packages.

Even seasoned stage performers often face crippling anxiety before performances late in their careers. Others take their own lives, often at a young age. Dick Cavett is among those who've suffered crippling depression and taken extended leaves due to it.

Depression is a different problem from performance anxiety.

I'd appreciate seeing your sources on that.

They're distinctly different emotions. You might as well ask me for a cite that being angry and being happy are different emotions.

That's an assertion, not a source.

I think you're pulling my leg.

I think you're wrong.

If you don't have a source, you can simply say so.

At this point, I'll simply presume as much and move on.

Depends on how they’re grading. If they’re just grading on final output plus looking at the work process for authenticity you’d be fine. But a lot of people would probably needlessly grade on process.