If this is the criteria I am facing at an interview, rather than all my work experience relevant for the position, then I'd like to change the title to "losers exist, don't work for them".
" “Tell me about your hobbies…” A person who has no hobbies, and can’t even exaggerate one, almost certainly lacks the ambition to make your company valuable. They are probably a loser. "
Am I missing some hidden nuance here? The interviewer is judging 'basic humanness' (their vocabulary, not mine) on the answers given to awkward questions in an already one-sided awkward interview.
Whether or not I want to talk about my hobbies in a interview has little to do with my technical or business acumen -- people get awkward around these kind of questions exactly because they don't grasp how it will affect the interview and the overall judgement , alienating people even more about how their 'extracurricular' activities outside the work place will affect their hirability is at minimum gauche , at most inhumane.
I echo the sentiment, I wouldn't want to work for losers who can't separate the business world from what I do on my off time, my favorite literature, my favorite yoga position ; whatever.
Someone can be very good at their job but in a startup situation you need to be flexible--and he's saying someone with no hobbies isn't going to be flexible enough.