The Rubber Duck Interview: How a Cute Bath Toy Accidentally Explains Why I Keep Passing Interviews

I never expected a yellow bathtub duck to become one of my favorite psychological concepts.

I was having an intense discussion on this topic with my friend over a phone call. I was familiar with the terminology of this rubber duck but what it actually was, I was unable to put forth in a psychological way. As a person, who spends 95% of his time alone inside the room, I decided to think on this topic and share my opinions or insights. So lets buckle up.

Where it all started

Few months ago, while I was close to my resignation from my first organization, I hardly appeared for the interviews of 3 companies, they were not the big tech giants but 2 of them were pretty recognizable. All of the interviews I gave, even though they were mediocre, I was pushed on to next stage where I used to lose hope after every interview. Surprisingly I cracked them all, the only question I was skeptical about was, what on earth they saw in me?

Conventional wisdom suggests that success depends primarily on knowledge. However, interviews often assess something more complex. Employers seek evidence of reasoning ability, adaptability, communication skills, and problem-solving processes.

I went even deeper, deep thinking mode activated...

When a candidate encounters an unfamiliar question, two distinct responses are possible.

The first is cognitive withdrawal. The candidate admits uncertainty and stops reasoning publicly. While honest, this approach reveals little about how the individual thinks.

The second is cognitive externalization. The candidate begins verbalizing assumptions, exploring possibilities, and constructing a solution in real time. In this scenario, the interviewer's role becomes remarkably similar to that of the rubber duck.

The interviewer is no longer merely evaluating answers. They are observing thought itself.

The role of rubber duck

Somewhere between software engineering, psychology, job interviews, and human stupidity lies a tiny yellow bird that silently watches people solve their own problems. The best part?

The duck does absolutely nothing.

No advice.

No mentorship.

No coding skills.

No LeetCode Premium subscription.

Just vibes.

And somehow people still solve problems while talking to it.

The story

In one of the interview, the task was given to the candidates over an email. It was to create a simple application, problem statement and required things were given in a document. I prepared it fast, as they gave only 1 day, I managed to embed it creatively with AI using APIs and all that stuff. Basically it was all out of the box app I made in one day.

In interview he asked me the question I was not prepared for. He asked me, why of all tasks, you chose this one? 

My basic interaction at the real time was, DOOMED!!

But suddenly I made up a quite good problem statement that most of the people are facing and I saw this issue and decided to solve the problem in an easy way something like that. This was not scripted, it automatically came in mind. The project didn't run as AI gave incorrect classification at the last moment, but the interviewer was very curious though. But the thing that concerned me, was the look on this face, I was worried.

But surprise, I made it to final round and cleared that too. But rejected the offer due to few reasons. I apologize to them for their efforts but I didn't expect myself to be selected.

The second story is rather funny one. Once again I had cleared the first round (which was highly technical centered around AI, ML, DL etc.) of the company and they invited me for a final round. I was grilled left right and center on the first interview itself. Once again, I didn't expect it but got invite for final round. I thought it was an HR discussion, I prepared for that since last 4-5 days, taking tips from seniors in my family. But when I sat in interview, it was technical round - 2.

I was not even prepared for that!!! Yet I gave my best, cracked it and made it count. But the question was how? Lets decipher it.

The psychological angle

In many interviews as above, I was not able to answer question about many simple topics. I wasn't able to write a single successful code too. Yet instead of giving up at the moment I saw the coding problem, I attempted it, and before you say anything else, I hate DSA.

A candidate may enter an interview believing they lack an answer. Yet as they begin speaking, connections form between prior experiences, partial understandings, and related concepts. What appears externally as improvisation may actually be the real-time assembly of previously disconnected mental models. This phenomenon explains why many candidates later report, "I made that answer up on the spot."

From a psychological perspective, they often did not invent the answer from nothing. Rather, they synthesized existing knowledge under the pressure of explanation.

For coding questions, I used to do a bit of a code, it was always wrong though, and then explain my approach, even though it was horribly wrong in every interview. Statements such as:

"I think this approach may work, but I'm concerned about edge cases."

or

"My first instinct is to use a hash map, although I may be missing a more optimal solution."

are examples of metacognitive awareness.

Metacognition, commonly defined as "thinking about thinking." in case I forgot to define it earlier. Highly effective problem solvers frequently engage in metacognitive monitoring. They evaluate their own reasoning as it unfolds.

In effect, the candidate transforms invisible thought processes into observable behavior.

The interviewer was the duck.

That sounds ridiculous.

But think about it.

The Rubber Duck Technique works because explaining a problem forces hidden thoughts into the open.

But others had a different perspective

Some people believe it was my superior communication skills that helped me ace many interviews, even though I weak in certain aspects. But I am highly doubtful on that part.

Human beings possess a well-documented cognitive bias toward verbal fluency. Ideas that are expressed smoothly and coherently are often perceived as more credible and intelligent than ideas presented hesitantly.

This creates an intriguing dynamic in interviews.

A candidate who verbalizes uncertainty while maintaining structured reasoning may be perceived as more competent than a candidate who remains silent despite possessing equivalent knowledge. Importantly, this does not imply deception. Rather, verbal fluency allows competence to become visible. The interviewer gains access not only to conclusions but also to the process that generated those conclusions.

There is a popular belief that successful interview candidates always know the answer. That is complete nonsense.

After enough interviews, I became convinced of something else. Many successful candidates don't start with answers. They start with reasoning. The interviewer asks a question. The answer doesn't exist yet. The candidate builds it while speaking. This is particularly common in AI interviews. Nobody has solved every possible problem. Nobody has memorized every architecture. Nobody knows every edge case. Real professionals often think in public. They construct solutions in real time. What looks like confidence is often just visible reasoning.

Bluffing vs Thinking

This distinction is important. Because some readers are already smiling and thinking:

"So you're telling me fake it till you make it works?"

Not exactly. There is a difference.

Bluffing sounds like:

"I know exactly how this works."

Five minutes later you blurt out:

"Actually..."

Total Disaster!!

Thinking aloud sounds like (and this exact statement I used even though I became clueless after seeing a coding problem):

"I haven't solved this exact problem before, but here's how I'd approach it."

One is pretending. The other is reasoning.

Interviewers can usually tell the difference. Good interviewers especially.

This became especially obvious during my AI interviews. Many questions didn't have perfect answers. Some didn't even have established best practices. The field changes every few months. The interviewer wasn't looking for a textbook. They were looking for evidence that I could think.

So this is what I came up with

After reflecting on all of this, I arrived at a personal theory. Every interview contains an invisible rubber duck. Most candidates never notice it. They believe the interview is a test of memory.

In reality, many interviews are tests of visible reasoning. The duck is sitting there silently. Waiting. The question arrives. You start explaining. Your thoughts become structured.

Ideas emerge. Connections appear. Solutions slowly form. The duck remains silent. The interviewer takes notes. And somewhere along the way, you discover that the answer was hiding inside your own mind the entire time.

I loved this name "Rubber Duck" though. The Rubber Duck Technique is often presented as a programmer's trick. Yet its underlying principles reveal something far more universal about human cognition.

Explanation is not merely a vehicle for communicating thought. It is a mechanism for generating thought.

In the context of job interviews, candidates who think aloud engage in a form of self-explanation that restructures knowledge, reveals hidden connections, and exposes reasoning processes to observation. What appears as confidence may, in reality, be cognitive transparency. What appears as improvisation may be the real-time construction of understanding.

The most surprising implication is that success does not always belong to the candidate with the perfect answer. Sometimes it belongs to the candidate willing to reason publicly, explore uncertainty, and allow the interviewer to witness the mind at work.

In this sense, the interview room contains an invisible rubber duck. The candidate speaks. The duck remains silent. Yet through the act of explanation, answers emerge.

Will be back with more such different topics next time, if I have an interesting conversations this weekend. Ciao!!