> I suspect though, that its extremely hard for someone to police themselves to avoid giving a candidate points for giving the "right answer".

It can be hard. But I'd argue getting caught up with what to say and what to ask only makes it harder. Questions and answers both shouldn't be doing all the heavy lifting for an interview. They do some, certainly, but IMO the best interviews are when we get out of the Q&A cycle and wind up talking about our views on X, Y, Z (topics that are: a) business related, b) company specific or c) tech appropriate, about 90% of the time).

> The trick is to completely ignore their initial response as signal, and then engage them with their response, whatever it may be.

I think I'd agree, but would modify that with "the trick is to not make a snap judgement on their response, but first engage ....". I mean really we could hash out all the initial responses we'd expect to hear from the question. Advancement opportunities, Salary, Autonomy, Culture, and so on, and that list by itself is not all that interesting, so it's dubious to make any conclusions on someone on their 3-5 choices until you get into the reasons behind them. And we're not really trying to make any judgements or conclusions about them, with this question. This is more a backdrop to their professional persona and their career goals along with their day-to-day work goals, and will come up as support behind your decision later on whether or not to continue with the hire, one way or another. EDIT: I should also note it helps the employer communicate back what areas they think will or will not work well with what the employee is looking for, so it is useful to both parties for making a decision.

> You're right, hiring is an arms race. Especially when we have endless blogs about the next hack for hiring rockstars, and thousands of job seekers studying these to get that edge. As a candidate I know that I better give him the answers he expects, even if they don't paint a completely accurate picture.

When you're talking to a recruiter or someone in HR who is several layers removed from those you would answer to or work with, then yes that interview will be more about aligning skillsets and experience and so on, and I've had only a rare few interviews with recruiters who didn't just stick to a script. For someone with real say in the final hire, though, I would highly advise against contributing to that arms race and instead treat the interview as a real no shit normal conversation (but about important stuff to both of you). If they get even a whiff that you're calibrating what you say with what they want to hear instead of actually considering their prompt and discussing it like an honest adult, it doesn't matter if you are months ahead of them on the latest interview game theory or not, they're going to weigh that behavior against your other good qualities.

> Case-in-point: for this question my #1 would be salary. This answer would likely immediately disqualify me with 95% of the people who would ask this question.

What's the rationale behind that assumption? I imagine salary/compensation will make the short list for most commonly occurring response to the original question. I mean, the company you're applying to is a for-profit entity, most likely, so why would they count it as a mark against you (much less "immediately disqualify" you) when you have the same motives as they do for getting out there and working hard every day? It's an obvious and unimaginative response, yes, but then they go "Okay, why salary? would you look primarily at salary or would other forms of compensation supplement your salary considerations, such as: more vacation/PTO, quarterly/annual bonus programs, insurance plans, misc. stipends, share options..." and you can respond on down the line and go into what exactly they offer or would consider offering. It shows you are comfortable navigating the different employer/employee dynamics that can exist (NOTE: Startups especially tend to have wide ranges of different compensation packages and we devs often find ourselves at one or another during our career) and also have a good sense of what you're looking for in those regards. I don't just want to hire the one who will cost me the least on paper, and I won't take offense when someone is looking to make good money working with me and is confident they can add enough value to the company over time that it will be justified; I will be willing to pay more for someone who knows what they want and what they're doing and isn't guarded about talking about it when the time is appropriate, they'll probably be a far better investment than someone who says (or acts like) they don't really care what you pay them as long as it covers their bills. (That being said, people starting out in their career usually don't think much on this sort of stuff so it's not like I always expect a new hire to have all this sorted out)

Anyway, I don't disagree with you all the way or anything but in my experience it's best to walk away from the game of tricky questions and stock "best" answers. Anywhere you are hired will be needing you problem solving and communicating by your first week, which are the two things those trick questions are imitating. So (ignoring technical acumen and so on) demonstrate you can do those in the interview and look for that when giving an interview.

Disclaimer: I actually love interviews, either side of the table, so I'm a little weird.