There's some good and bad stuff in this post. The good part: "[these questions] can help identify winners even amongst the nervous, “I don’t interview well” t

There's some good and bad stuff in this post. The good part: "[these questions] can help identify winners even amongst the nervous, “I don’t interview well” types of people who may warm up and shine on the job. And I’ve hired a lot of great people who don’t interview especially well. But when I jump into the above questions, they are able to speak eloquently to how dynamic and thoughtful they are as people." So yeah this is a technique that's worked for him to help "find winners" that he otherwise wouldn't have. The bad part is, rather obviously, the assumption that anyone that doesn't pass his test is a loser: "her upside enabled her to take on a lot of the unforeseen — and valuable — tasks that the previous candidate would have stumbled around." This is a serious case of choice supportive bias and because it's the focus of the article people are justifiably piling on the author. No you don't know that person is a loser. If it was that easy to find losers the billions of dollars used in hiring would have found this out already.