Maybe they are introverted or simply need to think before they talk. Around 50% of people are introverted (less in usa). Many people are like that and simultaneously quite skilled. Moreover, some environments punish errors, so people who worked/studied there tend to be conditioned to think before talking.
"And no matter how many times I try to work with them, act like their buddy, or w.e. they just kind of shut down."
You are not buddies, you are interviewer about to decide whether they get hired. Many people shutting down might mean that they are not comfortable juggling "buddy" social role and expectations and "serious job interview" social expectations simultaneously.
Very good point.
So my bet is on error avoidance.
I've had my own team members tell me they aren't engaged, don't speak up in meetings, etc. because they are an introvert. Like it's a condition we must accommodate. Bullshit.
Communication is a skill. We value clear communication in our company. If you join our company, you may not be an expert in communication, but you will grow that skill.
An interview is a different scenario, but still -- you need to be able to communicate with me. If you can't, we will pass on you as a candidate.
People should speak in meetings when they have something to say. Not just so they speak - that just waste everybody time.
The more important point is that if 80% of people shut down while they are talking to someone, maybe has more to do with that someone then 80% of population being uncommunicative.
There is value in silence and limited communication.
The fact that someone takes time to put together ideas before opening their mouth is not bad sign. Bad sign would be if they don't share result once they have done thinking.
Oh I do love the interwebs.
"Tell me what you are thinking about right now"
"What is jumping out at you for you to be stalling?"
"Did you see something?" --> "Why?" --> "You seem to be quiet and deep in thought, what are you thinking about?"
etc...
In a normal work environment where he or she is left to think freely the the same candidate might excel.
If the candidate would like some quiet time to think about the solution, I expect them to respond with "I think I'm forming a solution, just give me a couple of minutes to think about it before I present my case".
If they can't even do that, then I'm sorry, but they are no good to anyone. You can be the smartest and best developer in the world, but if you're completely incapable of representing yourself and your ideas; to have a dialog about your work, you are effectively worthless as an employee.
Some companies might have a place for that special someone, who you can lock in a room for a month and he will later emerge with an amazing new piece of code that will solve your problems, shielded from all the problems of the outside world, but companies where that is possible are very rare.
The whole point is to make them comfortable and that takes the highest priority. Being able to read the individual and react to them is key, not everyone is the same, hence why there are a multitude of responses, and the ones given are just a starting point.
There is no one-size-fits-all interview technique; if there was, it would be used all over the place. Good interviewing techniques are about playing the numbers, not leaving no programmer behind.
Even if I solve the problem I'm walking out of that interview with a very negative opinion of your company.
I also don't think he was advocating nagging either, simply asking questions to get the candidate talking. If you "go dark" for 10 minutes, you're pretty much definitely stuck. Talking to the interviewer might get you unstuck. Staring at the whiteboard quietly probably will not.
You're not bothering people while they're taking an expected amount of time to look at it. You're stopping a several minute silence after handing someone a basic loop and if statement.
For most positions we're talking about, this should not be a major problem. I found when doing something similar people either looked at me like I was crazy for giving them such a basic problem and after being reassured there was no catch answered simply and clearly, or just couldn't do anything. Followup questions about the code then went terribly (e.g. a JS contractor asking for £500+/day who didn't know what the difference between global and local variables was, why you should put var in front of things, etc).
These things are often good to weed out the incredible number of people who seem to have little to no coding ability at all for jobs where that's an obvious pre-requisite. I've also had people fail to solve a basic problem (roman numeral generator or reader) at home in whatever language they wanted, not even getting vaguely close. One person even sent in their broken version pasted into a word document.
