It feels incredibly invasive and I cannot see how it has any relevance to the jobs I am applying for.
For context I am a US citizen working in the US.
relevant case information here: https://www.bungie.net/en-US/Forums/Post/208397364?sort=0&pa...
IQ is very interesting on the first order and very flawed on the second order, and makes for a super interesting read. Read these for contrast:
Bell Curve
Mismeasure of man
Or if you’re lazy find each author speak about it on YouTube.
The central issue with testing like this is that:
1. It works to some extent especially if you don’t know anything else about a candidate.
2. It’s misused as a synonym for general intelligence.
3. The false negative rate is high. I.e. scoring less than some other candidate means nothing a very large portion of the time.
4. Results are often strongly correlated to notional race.
5. An actual IQ test (eg WAIS IV) is hard to administer. All other tests claim legitimacy by being merely correlated to them.
Perhaps someone with a high IQ is more able to solve a given task on their own, but often it's more important you can work well with others and communicate clearly. I know personally I'd swap my 130~ IQ for 100 if I had good communication skills any day.
You can look at white boarding as proxy IQ tests or aptitude tests, the latter of which are customized for the role in question. I'm on the fence when it comes to deciding which bucket white boarding falls into.
I see the parallel you’re drawing but in this instance it’s important not to. IQ is divisive precisely by being made synonymous to performance in every other task requiring abstraction.