With phrases like "your interlocutor will try to trick you into making a decision" I would treat this article as less than gospel.

I've been on both sides of the negotiation table. With any negotiation, both sides must "win" and neither side should try to "trick" the other party. On the prospective employee side, should they inflate their credentials and experience? Sooner than later after working at the new place, they will find out and credibility will be lost, so of course you shouldn't.

So let me take the perspective the the hiring manager: should the hiring manager try to quickly close the candidate? Of course not. I'm after the candidate. I want them to work for me (something the article doesn't mention). I want them to work, in fact, for something more than compensation because compensation is not a strong motivator. Paychecks are important, of course, but no one can say that a more highly paid individual always outperforms a lower paid one.

As the hiring manager, I represent the company. Of course I would prefer to acquire talent for the lowest amount as possible, but you might be surprised that we don't want candidates to be underpaid. Underpaid employees are not long term invested in the company and will seek a higher salary elsewhere eventually. I would hope the employee has a salary which supports them (and their family), pay the bills, save and enjoy life with another variable tied to their performance and commitment as a long term investment. Whether it be options, RSUs, bonus, etc. you want employees who can achieve a higher compensation and tie that to goals. In this way of thinking, the negotiation process is never closed.

There are some good things to take from the article from the candidate side, specifically around taking notes, being positive, not taking undue pressure and how to push back (exploding offers). To be honest, having non-timebound offers are never a good thing, because too much time to think or continue shopping are not only against the employers wish (assume we have limited people we can hire, and the time to get someone onboard is opportunity cost), but sometimes it's against the candidates best interests as well. People often have difficulty making choices, and limitations are a healthy thing -- sometimes especially when you have the ability to overthink and analyze things, as most engineers do. The language of "exploding" offers is counter to an employers interest, because it's basically saying, "take it or leave it, I'm going to walk away in 48 hours" is insanity, in my opinion. You might say to a candidate, "If you give me a verbal 'yes' now I can get to <$offer + x%>" as a way to try to close them. Hiring managers want to close a candidate as quickly as possible, there is no such thing as an infinite time scale on either side, and there are many candidates who are, unfortunately, not negotiating in good faith. Example: a candidate who is just trying to get a counter-offer from their current employer, or just trying to bump up an offer for another company they're really interested in. I assume when someone tells me they're interested in the company and joining that they're telling the truth, which above all both sides should do. Words matter.