I work at a MEGACORP and I have been on hiring committees, and from my experience one's ability to interview well, and ones ability to perform the tasks of the position are not really 1-to-1. Sometimes a good candidate can interview very well and do the job, other times not. it's just a roll of the dice and we add negative modifiers to people just cause they aren't good talking to randos. It's really weird to me that people have to learn how to meta-game interviewing. There are so many books, videos, courses, and classes, on how to interview. Not how to do the job, not how to do the day-to-day but how to get the opportunity to do that. That's some next level neoliberalism if you ask me.

Being personable is great and all, but it doesn't really say anything about your ability to do or not do whatever is related to the role.

I had a terrible interview with for my current position, I only landed the job cause a referral if I'm being honest. I can do the job and do it well (being a cog in a MEGACORP is surprisingly easy) but if it were purely off my ability to sell myself to dudes in suits I probably won't have even got the entry-level position in the first place.

I genuinely believe that facets of jobs hunting are all sorts of -ists. There are so many unseen social factors that ultimately decided if you're "qualified" for a role that really shouldn't be considered at all. I wish this were more discussed.

I'm certain tons of people are good fits for the day-to-day tasks of a job from grocery cashier to astronaut but aren't great at talking to a stranger whom they know can directly influence their financial livelihood outcomes. Interviewing at this point is a meta-game in the process of finding a job, and to me it shows how arbitrary landing a job is. Just because you can or cannot interview well really don't display how you can do a job. Hiring is a deeply broken system that relies on archaic and arbitrary customs.

As with most things, "THE MARKET™️®️©️" is really bad a sorting people.