There is nothing scientific about the setup, it implies bias front and center, the conclusion is completly flawed and the title doesn't even state the result co

There is nothing scientific about the setup, it implies bias front and center, the conclusion is completly flawed and the title doesn't even state the result correctly: Indeed, at best, this is not about how well a candidate does at interview depending on how good at communicating they are. This is about how companies rate canditates on communication depending on if pass their interview or not. You can't post a comment on HN without people obsessivelly asking proof about your opinion, numbers, studies, data... And this reach the frontpage. How ironic.