Go ahead and pretend a job interview is not a competition. I hope that works out for you.
Also, you seem to imply that I favor asking questions unrelated to the job when my article says exactly the opposite, that I despise those questions and only resort to them when I have two candidates who are running neck and neck and I need a tiebreaker.
I think you might want to re-read the article because you seem to be mischaracterizing the point. That point is: Yes Google is a critical tool to do your job, but it doesn't differentiate you from other candidates when interviewing so it is a worthless answer in that context.
I don't really think that captures what I was saying in the article. This quote is a little more representative of the overall message:
"On the job, the goal is to solve problems and get things done using any tool at your disposal. At the interview, the goal is to demonstrate why they should hire you instead of one of the other candidates who also have access to Google... A job interview is a competition, not a pass-fail test"
As for the comment that I am going to assume all kinds of things. Of course I am and so will other managers. We are all human and make assumptions all the time, often subconsciously. My point was just that it is in the candidate's best interest to recognize what you may be communicating by deferring to Google.
Getting mad about it doesn't help you get the job, so there is no sense in that. The intent of the article was to HELP candidates put their best foot forward with the benefit of some inside information from the other side of the interview table.
Also, you seem to imply that I favor asking questions unrelated to the job when my article says exactly the opposite, that I despise those questions and only resort to them when I have two candidates who are running neck and neck and I need a tiebreaker.