I don't doubt anything about what you're saying, but I'm not sure what argument you're making. Yes, false negatives exist. Will another kind of interview have b

I don't doubt anything about what you're saying, but I'm not sure what argument you're making. Yes, false negatives exist. Will another kind of interview have better rates of false negatives? At the big tech firm where I work, there are many different kinds of interviews, and HR definitely has all the data about what correlates with job performance. I'm not saying coding-style interviews are perfect or even good, but there has got to be a reason they still do them. As humans with a strong confirmation bias, it is extremely difficult to tell what's behind your feelings for those worst yeses. It could have been the case that the candidate had red flags, you saw them, but couldn't articulate them. Or it could have just as easily been the case that the candidate had a cultural and/or communication style that was different from your own, and they also happened to perform poorly after being hired. It's important to remember that no interview process is going to yield perfect results: there will be false negatives and false positives, you can only move the trade-offs while simultaneously ensuring that you're avoiding any conscious or unconscious discrimination against protected class to the fullest extent possible. That's a hard problem to solve.