> I always preface these sections of the interview with a moment to explain that I expect them to push back and disagree if I say something they think is wrong so that we can talk about it.
I interpreted that as, at least implicitly, flagging to the interviewee that not everything the interviewer says will accurately represent his/her views. Perhaps it could be made clearer, but it doesn't seem like the intent is to deceive.
That's pretty much the definition of a liar and outright deceptive.
Besides that, the tactic of trying to be debative and in this case outright dishonest and slightly combative is an incredibly terrible method for interviews.
Honestly the poster should be banned from giving interviews.
It seems to me that you've jumped to a very strong conclusion, based on a brief conversation that you have interpreted in the least charitable way possible.
It's a huge part of the job and the idea that I shouldn't test people on it strikes me as absurd. You seem like you're jumping to interpret what I've said negatively.
Imagine a candidate who came in and said, "I'm really great at this computer stuff, just trust me!" but refused to show a resume, prior work, to even talk about it.
"Push back, it's fine, trust us!"
This ends up filtering for people who can deal with your bullshit,(as in: have other options) and don't mind doing so. So, good for you, I guess, but you could get better people by fixing your culture and being straight with people.
Regarding tenure, I don't understand how that's applicable to hiring new people.
Regarding the imaginary candidate I think this is supporting my point - no? Just like you wouldn't want to trust someone who offered no evidence for their abilities, I want to discern whether people can stand up to arguments and make compelling arguments for their case. In order to get the evidence I put them in a position to stand up to arguments and put arguments forward.
Regarding your thoughts about how this filters people, I think you've summarized it incorrectly. Even if I agreed that asking people to argue against me in an interview was "bullshit" then that wouldn't filter only "for people who can deal with your bullshit,(as in: have other options) and don't mind doing so". Clearly, the people who have no other option would also put up with the tactic, as they have no other option. Thus, the filter, as you put it, filters only people who don't mind putting up with the interview question. This is actually a point in my favor because if the candidate is not comfortable arguing for or against positions in a professional context then they would not be a good fit for the role.
Finally, you suggest "fixing your culture and being straight with people." I think I am being straight with the interviewee. I tell them upfront that if I say anything they disagree with I want them to push back on me, that I think disagreement and debate is positive and sometimes necessary. Again, the role requires disagreeing and pushing back on arguments, often in situations where there is pressure not to, so I think giving friendly encouragement and setting up a hypothetical situation where I will disagree with the candidate is a very reasonable thing to do.