It's a pure win on their side.
As an engineer, you want to increase your value contribution to the org and the org should see you the same way. This usually means look for software product companies with at least some meritocracy. It should be about software all the way down.
In any other scenario, it's about something else, usually pleasing the boss, you are a servant, and good luck with that.
You might be giving them too much credit. I suspect that may have been the original intent of the question, but was mindlessly aped after appearing in an article by countless hiring managers and recruiters.
Merit-driven applicant: This test is not backed by science, does not measure anything related to performance relevant to the job and is arbitrary. Oh, and did you check how do the developers of the test address the fundamental problem of lack of replicability and reproducibility in psychology?
Hiring (if they can actually articulate and self-reflect, a rare occurrence): So you think you're smarter than us?
Subservient applicant: I gave this test 110%, thank you for this opportunity! I look forward to learn more about how I can contribute to the continued success of [org name]!
Speaking to a mediocre manager with a very stable career, tt was a revelation for me to hear them say "smart people get frustrated quickly. I've learned through the years to select those that are agreeable". Value and value creation were not on that managers radar.
That might make sense if you're hiring people to dig holes in the ground but seems absurd to use as a filter for any sort of skilled professional position.
Ignorance can be fixed relatively easily compared to poor personality traits.
I think somewhere here is a conflation between "ignorance" and "intelligence".
First priority is to get someone who doesn't stir up unnecessary shit.
Second priority, get someone smart.
Third priority, get someone who already knows the tech.
Besides the fact that it's stupid and somewhat embarassing.
We had some of those too there’d also be this webcam screen thing where you answer vague interpersonal questions as the camera looks at you.
I don't think companies should be administering psychometric tests. But it doesn't make the task you refused to do meaningless.
Did they say it was? I'd withdraw my application too. There's no good reason for it, just bad reasons that they think are good.
Fascinating that should carry over into the 21st century hiring process.
I did really enjoy surfing in California Games.
Of course there's software tricks you could have used as well.
It would be great if you gave them feedback along the same lines, although chances are it would just get ignored.