Yep and it also reinforces biases in interviewers. They start to think people really are just incompetent despite their experience - and start to believe even more in high pressure interviews. When the vast majority of “can’t believe the candidate couldn’t even do a for loop” is due to stressors.

> When the vast majority of “can’t believe the candidate couldn’t even do a for loop” is due to stressors.

This idea keeps me up at night, but do you have any evidence for it?

I've interviewed plenty of people with 15+ years of experience who really struggled to do basic programming tasks. And who didn't show any obvious signs of stress.

To this day I have no idea how many of them were not performing because they were stressed out of their minds but hiding it. Vs how many were simply not very good at programming. I have no idea how to tell the difference when they don't make it obvious to me.

No evidence - how would you even begin to get it. Just my feeling from doing many interviews as well. I still recall a CS PhD from a top school fumbling with the most basic for loop in an interview I was doing. I just can't believe people are this incompetent. I think the simplest explanation is nerves - even mild levels of stress are known to shut down people's ability to think.

Ergo, I strongly suspect the current tech hiring culture filters out anyone who has above average sensitivity.

Here's Michael Bay having a panic attack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeClZfVwOk4

Note that aside from some minor body language cues, there aren't a lot of outward signs of panic. How it looks and how it feels are very different.

I believe you. The struggle is, when a candidate is failing a job interview, how can you tell the difference between someone who's good but stressed vs someone who's just not very good?

Because weak candidates need to submit a lot of applications to get a job, most job applications are from weak candidates. Its easy to feel compassion for people who have panic attacks. Its much harder to make a filter for weak candidates which doesn't also filter out people with performance anxiety.

Seems like we don't even know how big a this problem is. Is it 1% of the candidates? 10%? 50%? I have no idea. And it sounds like nobody here has any real idea either.

>how can you tell the difference between someone who's good but stressed vs someone who's just not very good?

This is a solved problem already. Do we use whiteboard interviews for standardized tests or certifications? No.

>Seems like we don't even know how big a this problem is.

Seems like you don't know.

>Is it 1% of the candidates? 10%? 50%? I have no idea. And it sounds like nobody here has any real idea either.

How much time did you spend trying to find out before giving up?

I'd appreciate if you expressed your opinions explicitly, rather than as snippy backhanders.

> Do we use whiteboard interviews for standardized tests or certifications? No.

Your position is not clear here. Are you claiming a written exam would be a better assessment for programming ability? That sounds bad?

For what its worth, I don't think whiteboards are the best way to assess programming skill either. My preference is for supervised programming assessments - like this article suggests. Whats your preference and why?

>> Seems like we don't even know how big a this problem is.

> Seems like you don't know.

Correct; I don't know. That is why I asked.

If the answer is obvious to you, maybe instead of insults you could link to a study?