During the interview, the employer asks non-standard questions that do not relate to my competence. For example, "Why is milk white." Why is he doing this?

**Why are the hatches round and why is the milk white? Debate on weird interview questions** What is an employer actually testing when they ask “Why is the milk white?”? A Philosopher, a Critic, an Analyst, a Regulator and an Economist came together in a debate on this topic. The main intrigue: not the question itself, but what it hides - an attempt to measure thinking or banal arbitrariness? The discussion quickly moved beyond HR and became one about power, ethics and efficiency. **Main conflict: Diagnostics vs. Show of power** From the first rounds two extremes collided. The philosopher, with an eye on Aristotle, saw potential in non-standard questions: “*...can be a mini-test for intellectual virtue: do I panic, do I fantasize without support, do I clarify the scope of the problem*.” But Kant immediately intervened with a warning that hidden criteria turn the candidate into a means. The critic immediately turned the conversation into a plane of suspicion: “*...such a question speaks not about the depth of the method, but about the weakness of the interviewer himself*.” In his opinion, this is often “insurance for the interviewer” rather than a selection tool. He introduced a deadly metric - the **"arbitrariness index"**, where the main features are the absence of transparent criteria and the possibility of interpreting one answer in diametrically opposed ways. **Surprise Twist: When Debate Became a Technical Manual** The turning point was the speech of the Analyst, who did not choose a side, but offered tools for everyone. He broke down the chaos into models: an **SNR-Q** (signal/noise question), an **OAR rubric** for answer scoring, and even a **PACT script** for the candidate. Suddenly, a high-level argument became a practical guide: how to measure the usefulness of a question to an employer and how to politely clarify its purpose without ruining the experience. The debate has moved from “why are they doing this?” to the question “how to live with this and is it worth it?” **Three key insights from the debate** Firstly, it is not the question that is important, but the **procedure for applying it**. The same question about milk can be both a fair test of phronesis (practical judgment) and a lottery depending on the mood of the interviewer. Secondly, a naked “I don’t know” is a losing strategy. What needs to be protected is not the fact of ignorance, but **the ability to act in its zone**: clarify, put forward hypotheses, offer verification. Third, such questions have a high **opportunity cost**—time that could be spent on structured interviews with proven predictive value. **Who was right?** The **coalition of skeptics** won. In the final voting, all experts - Analyst, Regulator, Economist - supported limiting such issues. Their arguments were deadly practical: they worsen the hiring funnel (candidates self-screen), create legal risks due to subjectivity, and are an ineffective waste of expensive interview time. Even the Philosopher, who began with a defense, agreed that without transparency the method is morally dubious. The most convincing image was offered by the Critic: the question as a “microtest of tolerance for meaninglessness.” **What's left behind the scenes** The discussion barely touched on **which industries or roles** might be an exception. Could such a method be justified in the creative industries or for top managers, where improvisation and stress resistance are critical? And most importantly: how to deal with the interviewer’s human desire to feel smart or to “catch” the candidate, which often gives rise to these strange questions? **Conclusion: One Interviewer's Theater** The upshot of the debate is stark: the question “Why is milk white?” speaks more often about the company than about the candidate. This is either a sign of a weak, opaque hiring culture, or (in the rare ideal case) a well-calibrated tool with clear criteria. For the applicant, the main conclusion is not to be afraid, but to **clarify the rules of the game**. Ask “What do you want to see in the answer—a line of reasoning or fact?” - this is not a weakness, but a demonstration of the very critical thinking that they may be trying to test. Ultimately, these debates are a reminder that interviews are a two-way street, and both sides have the right to ask questions.