The problem with this approach is most interviewers are not willing to be convinced that they are wrong. I've had a high-level engineer from Apple argue fervently in an interview that the Boyer-Moore string search algorithm 'can't possibly work' and a high-level engineer from Google argue fervently that linked lists are superior to arrays (despite me clearly explaining the problems with pointer-chasing and locality).
Some interviewers just come in with their own preconceptions and outdated/incomplete information, and I very rarely encounter interviewers that actually appreciate learning something new from a candidate.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.
I had same experience with Apple. An interviewer insisted that frequency can never be negative. (He was clueless about something called the Fourier transform where the integral for frequency runs from -infinity to +infinity.)
Perhaps, but in most cases the person simply cannot follow your reasoning. That might not be your fault. The interviewer might not be as smart as you, or might not have a very theoretical background. I've never heard of the Boyer-Moore string algorithm, so when presented with it for the first time I might not understand it.
Some interviewers just come in with their own preconceptions and outdated/incomplete information, and I very rarely encounter interviewers that actually appreciate learning something new from a candidate.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.