That probably makes perfect sense for you, and reflects most technical people's perspective, but it depends on the job.
When I've interviewed developers and other technical people when I was in that business, I wanted to gauge if they'd be pleasant to work with, and vaguely "who they are," but that's about it. In a dev interview, I'd be suspicious of someone digging into what made me tick, if for no reason other than their lacking boundaries. But even in ambiguous green field coding projects, not having the most creative dev team could maybe result in longer design times, or overly prescriptive solutions, at worst, if they're technically competent.
Edit: (That said, in one technical role I was in, a technically competent new hire (that I didn't interview) tried to bring a machete into work on their second day for reasons we never found out, despite our working in the secure block of a government building with metal detectors, man traps, etc. But I think that's probably a bit of an outlier. ;-)
However, if I was applying for a job at a creative studio doing deep creative work on amorphous topics with comparatively ambiguous definitions of success, like making a movie, designing a large brand/visual identity from the ground up, or similar, I might not even accept a job if they weren't digging into what makes everybody on that team tick. The difference between mediocrity and excellence at that stage is almost entirely based on the creative capability of the team as an entity. Someone that doesn't jibe with it will be a drag on everyone at best, or unintentionally dousing the creative flames with an unhelpful attitude and momentum-killing diversions at worst.
Design studios also tend to be a lot smaller and their reputation is more transparent than tech companies. If I was applying for a job to be a designer at IBM, I'd be more wary, but you're also much less likely to be doing the really deep-digging conceptual stuff in those roles. But when it comes to the really deep conceptual work, the chance of joining a low-productivity team or even just not jibing with them is too great. That stuff is like the equivalent of troubleshooting skills in dev. The "getting to know you" conversation would be like giving a developer some leetcode questions without actually seeing if they're good at solving problems. Like I said though, it's easier when you're talking about a business with like 15 people that you probably at least have a friend of a friend that's worked there. I guess it boils down to having the benefit of community. Also, these jobs tend not to be as sticky as dev jobs and people move between them a lot, so it's easy for you to slide on to the next place.
I also have to say that the shittiest, most toxic and manipulative job I've ever had didn't have a particularly robust hiring practice. It was my first white collar tech job so I was already used to shitty manipulative employers in lower-level support jobs and didn't catch it. They were perfectly content to figure out how to exploit people after they were hired.
but what the hell has my personal history to do with design job? There are better ways to gauge the person's personality than digging in their history.
There are many people who also keep strict buffer between their personal life and work - basically complete different, but not fake(!), personality.
When I've interviewed developers and other technical people when I was in that business, I wanted to gauge if they'd be pleasant to work with, and vaguely "who they are," but that's about it. In a dev interview, I'd be suspicious of someone digging into what made me tick, if for no reason other than their lacking boundaries. But even in ambiguous green field coding projects, not having the most creative dev team could maybe result in longer design times, or overly prescriptive solutions, at worst, if they're technically competent.
Edit: (That said, in one technical role I was in, a technically competent new hire (that I didn't interview) tried to bring a machete into work on their second day for reasons we never found out, despite our working in the secure block of a government building with metal detectors, man traps, etc. But I think that's probably a bit of an outlier. ;-)
However, if I was applying for a job at a creative studio doing deep creative work on amorphous topics with comparatively ambiguous definitions of success, like making a movie, designing a large brand/visual identity from the ground up, or similar, I might not even accept a job if they weren't digging into what makes everybody on that team tick. The difference between mediocrity and excellence at that stage is almost entirely based on the creative capability of the team as an entity. Someone that doesn't jibe with it will be a drag on everyone at best, or unintentionally dousing the creative flames with an unhelpful attitude and momentum-killing diversions at worst.