I think that's because it's very hard to get this strategy right. In some interviews, it may not be possible due to the way the interview process is set up, and

I think that's because it's very hard to get this strategy right. In some interviews, it may not be possible due to the way the interview process is set up, and in particular the magnitude of information asymmetry. I think getting it right hinges on two things: 1) Does the interviewer actually have a concrete objective that you are qualified to help them achieve -- even if they themselves aren't necessarily aware of it or have it top of mind. 2) Can you identify that objective either ahead of time or in the interview process, and in a polite yet direct manner convince them that you can help them achieve it. If neither of these are true, it is bound to come off poorly. Whiteboard/puzzle based 'general intelligence assessment' style interviews don't lend themselves to this. Wishy washy job descriptions don't lend themselves to this. Hiring processes influenced by politics rather than need (i.e. where a manager is disincentivised to hire someone better than they are) don't lend themselves to this. If a majority of candidates who try this strategy with you aren't able to pull it off well, perhaps step back and take a look at your recruitment/interview processes and see if you could actually help the good ones impress you. I'm not saying I've done this right in the past, quite the contrary. For me the ideal interview is me simply describing a problem my team has, and the interviewee educating me on how to solve it and why they are the right person to do so (though usually the fact they are able to do the former implies the latter). I've tried to format interviews more like this over time and I have personally found better results as a consequence.