Which means that the other half are not technical roles.
It's especially bewildering when a company seeks a software engineer with expertise in a highly technical domain and populates the interview primarily with programming questions. If they can find the subject matter expert who also happens to be a master software craftsman, congrats to them, but I'm guessing that person doesn't come along very often.
(Maybe I'm bitter, but with the level of skill in computer vision I can demonstrate, don't you think you can teach me your programming nits in short order?)
What other non-soft skills are you discussing?
This approach demonstrates an ability to collaborate. If a person can't debate a straightforward problem without either backing down immediately, or getting angry or defensive, how will they be able to deal with protracted disputes about the design of complex projects?
Interviews can sometimes make me nervous, but I have a history of having zero problem defending an opinion against someone 7 or 8 layers above me.
The NFL is high stress, but there are home games and away games. And playing local rivals you know well, and distant teams you know less well. Much BigCo work is done "on the inside", amid familiar faces; or with cultural reference points you have in common {etc}. Interviewing with a new company can be a hit-or-miss affair because it requirese the establishment of common ground. That's in part why many people short-list resume's with applicants who went to the same or similar schools, or who have worked with common colleagues/products/platforms etc. It all becaus the over-head to process and place context around the applicant is much cheaper (efficient) in the sense of less mantally taxing for the Inverviewer (and if lucky, the interviewee). So in short, that's why new contexts themselves can be more stressful than what might otherwise appear to be "higher" stress from the outside.
Some interviewers just come in with their own preconceptions and outdated/incomplete information, and I very rarely encounter interviewers that actually appreciate learning something new from a candidate. They do exist, but in practice you're better off just shutting up and waiting for them to move on. Pretending to agree doesn't help anyone, of course.
How is this even a useful comparison? Wouldn't it entirely depend on context? They are two different data structures and are both useful. Arguing that one is superior seems nonsensical.