The point of interview is not to be objective or something like, the point is to maximize chances for a good hire. Your chosen example is the one of several, and don't forget it is an hour of talking. No one decides on this answer alone.
From other hand if it is so hard to get some kind of behaviour from an interviewee then maybe it is really not their kind of behaviour? Not something they would do naturally without nudging?
Judging by my own experience, it is hard to me to hide my normal way of thinking, it needs some conscious effort, and if given an excuse to talk along my normal line of thought I would do it. And if I was nudged to do it and I didn't because I thought it is not the right time or place for it, then it would be a pathetic inability to read a situation I'm in.
Anyway it is all probabilistic judgements, you cannot get anything certain in a psychology. But if you got a bunch of probabilistic signals then you can decide probabilistically.
And you cannot get anything "objective" in psychology. Everything is subjective, even formalized tests. To this day people have no test that allows to decide if there is a human on the other side of a communication. The best we have is Turing Test which is laughable excuse for a test, not an objective measure. We cannot reliably measure a difference between human and non-human, how could we hope to measure reliably a difference between a good hire and a bad one?
From other hand if it is so hard to get some kind of behaviour from an interviewee then maybe it is really not their kind of behaviour? Not something they would do naturally without nudging?
Judging by my own experience, it is hard to me to hide my normal way of thinking, it needs some conscious effort, and if given an excuse to talk along my normal line of thought I would do it. And if I was nudged to do it and I didn't because I thought it is not the right time or place for it, then it would be a pathetic inability to read a situation I'm in.
Anyway it is all probabilistic judgements, you cannot get anything certain in a psychology. But if you got a bunch of probabilistic signals then you can decide probabilistically.
And you cannot get anything "objective" in psychology. Everything is subjective, even formalized tests. To this day people have no test that allows to decide if there is a human on the other side of a communication. The best we have is Turing Test which is laughable excuse for a test, not an objective measure. We cannot reliably measure a difference between human and non-human, how could we hope to measure reliably a difference between a good hire and a bad one?