Rare in the US from my experience. The only real exception I know is companies owned by the PE firm Vista Equity Partners, who all use such a test. The once ubiquitous Microsoft/Google logic puzzles seem to be mostly gone here as well.

Thank you for the answer. From the 2012 HN post I did see some comments that did corroborate the point that it used to be more common, but was essentially replaced with coding test. (which makes me kinda feel less bad about coding tests now)

Yeah, I was going to mention Vista as well. A startup I worked for was acquired by a Vista portfolio company and they made us all take the CCAT: https://www.criteriacorp.com/assessments/cognitive-aptitude/...

Never in my life

I've had what they did not call an IQ test as part of pre-interview screening.

They also didn't call the personality test a personality test.

A Swedish startup I'm talking to has both IQ and personality tests. Same for virtualy every other Swedish company I talked to in the past. Similar but to lesser extent for German companies. Some companies try to hide it until the final interview. I hate all of it.

It has happened to me a few times over the years, one finance place in US, one in Singapore. It's a minority, but some places that think they're special / "we only hire the best", etc do it.

i've seen it at platforms similar to toptal (focus on top%) i think it's fair but i hate it because i score low at it, haha.

I've never had an IQ test administered. Wish it was done more though – although I'm not sure it would legal here in the UK. I've never heard of anyone else having one done either.

I find most of the objections to IQ testing difficult to understand. IQ is statistically correlated to a lot of things you'd want to hire for. It's true that some groups do worse on intelligence tests so I suppose it would "discriminate" against them, but those groups also tend to do worse on examinations generally.

To object to IQ tests you basically need to object to all forms of education which are graded by formalised testing. If IQ tests discriminate against certain groups then education probably does so to an even greater extent since educational achievement is often linked to one's IQ + socioeconomic status.

The truth is you're always going to be discriminating against candidates during the hiring process since that's the entire point of it. Given this you might as well do it in the fairest way possible and IQ testing is probably one of the fairer ways all things considered.

That said, I'm biased here because I come from a bad background and went to bad schools, therefore did bad academically despite having a decently high IQ. It's less of a problem these days, but early on in my life / career it was annoying having to try to prove to people that I'm capable of things despite doing poorly academically as a product of my background.

I would acknowledge there are limitations to IQ testing though since IQ tests are simply tests of general intelligence. It's possible to have a high IQ but struggle socially or with specific skills. So if you're hiring for a role which requires good social skills a general IQ test might not be the best filter. Most jobs (such as software engineering) also require a decent amount of domain knowledge, in which case a candidates knowledge and experience should trump their IQ.

First its worth baring in mind that actual IQ test requires a specialist and takes a long time, so most will use something that correlates with IQ scores instead.

Simple counter argument is that IQ tests are not domain specific enough and not causative of domain specific capability even where complex reasoning is involved. Therefore, you should test closer to the role.

E.g. for developers, a ranking of candidates by LeetCode scores will not be the same as the ranking of candidates by Raven progressive matrices -- they may correlate, but the differences are important and -- arguably -- one is more job specific than the other.

> First its worth baring in mind that actual IQ test requires a specialist and takes a long time, so most will use something that correlates with IQ scores instead.

This isn't an issue with IQ testing, it's an issue with testing generally. You'll find most objections to IQ testing can be applied to practically every form of testing.

Also, IQ tests don't require a specialist, nor do they need to take a long time. Only the most accurate IQ testing would generally require these things. Normally when hiring you're just trying to get a rough sense of a candidates abilities.

> Simple counter argument is that IQ tests are not domain specific enough and not causative of domain specific capability even where complex reasoning is involved. Therefore, you should test closer to the role.

I agree. For most roles I wouldn't be in favour of just measuring IQ – and I did touch on the limitations of IQ in my comment. But regardless of its limitations it's still true that individuals with higher IQs tend to learn faster and be more intellectually capable in general.

I could say something like, "LeetCode scores just selects for software engineers who can write a certain type of code, but doesn't measure one's ability to play well as a team or one's ability to view problems at higher levels of abstraction". The right thing to test depends entirely on what kind of abilities you're selecting for. If you need a software engineer to be adaptable and broadly capable then IQ is probably a good metric to consider (among others). And in my opinion instead of implicitly creating a selection process which favours the next white guy with a degree and 10+ years experience as a software engineer, it would be more equatable to consider people who show strong potential but perhaps have less experience.

I wish it was less administered considering it's history and its proponents often ulterior motives. Also because of the rigorous debunking of it by multiple, honest neruscientists I've worked with have shared with me. But I didn't ask the question for the purpose of a debate about its validity, so I think we can agree to disagree on our stance to it.

But I want to thank you for sharing your opinion/bias and the background of it. I can see your point, as I also (due family circumstances) also struggled academically when I were younger and scoring high on those tests used to give me a confidence boost.

Too easy to run afoul of the ADA and anti-discrimination laws in the US. I have refused to take nonsense tests like the Myers-Briggs, objecting by citing the ADA, and still got offers.

IQ tests do measure something, referred to as g, but it's far from clear that predicts job performance. When CEOs and politicians have to take IQ tests and get some minimum score maybe I'll play along.

In my experience, it was always shady bodyshops that had these kind of tests. Perhaps they are looking for submissive personalities.

Myers-Briggs is just a toolkit and you don't even need a test to figure out your type, it's only four variables. But it is a useful toolkit when you learn it.

> Myers-Briggs is just a toolkit

Myers-Briggs is just unsubstantiated nonsense made to sell scam products and services to the gullible, that has been marketed so effectively that people believe that it is meaningful because they’ve heard the name so much. (In the way repetition detached from origin have driven its popular perception, it’s like “Stockholm Syndrome” that way, or the popular misportrayal of the Dunning-Kruger effect, though neither of those are ongoing commercial scams.)

(A couple of its axes have weak correlations with axes of empirically-grounded personality models, by sheer luck, and so it can have some weak utility that way, but even there you could use a valid tool based on an empirically-grounded model for better results.)

I'm going to agree to disagree here.

Not consistent. Not predictive. Not based on anything resembling science. Trivially gamed. Repeatedly debunked. It's a "toolkit" in the same sense that you can call astrology a "toolkit." I can figure out my zodiac sign from my birth date, no test required. But so what? It doesn't mean anything.

M-B belongs in the dustbin of other useless pseduo-scientific "tools" such as phrenology, nativities, reading entrails, omens and signs, palmistry, tarot, ouija boards, etc. Of course some people want to believe in those things, but that doesn't make them useful.

I guarantee that it can be useful on a day to day, brass tacks basis. More useful than 9 most mental models.

For the sake of argument let’s assume M-B measures or reveals something useful. How can you use that information “day to day, brass tracks?” You would have to know the M-B results of other people, and assume they told you honestly.

Since a person can get different results from M-B across multiple trials, and M-B doesn’t predict anything, I don’t see how you can call it useful. Maybe you can explain instead of just disagreeing.

I'm surprised you're willing to engage, but since you are, happy to!

Basically there's only 4 variables for Myers-Briggs. It's so simple I can accurately type someone after talking to them for a couple of minutes. Here's a breakdown:

Extraverted (E) vs Introverted (I)

“E” generally means gaining energy from other people, while “I” means people drain your batteries. This one is not always immediately obvious for people. In general "E"s talk more when with groups of people and "I"s think more.

Sensing (S) vs Intuiting (N)

This is about how you process new information. S people see what's actually in front of them - they think and talk more in specifics. In general, S types are better at detail oriented work.

N types intuit things, so they sometimes aren't great at focusing at what's in front of them, but are great at coming up with ideas and next steps based on what they see.

I am a typical N - not great with details, but better at abstractions compared to the average person.

Feeling (F) vs Thinking (T)

Everyone feels and everyone thinks. A good way to judge this is people's reactions to situations. Feelers react with empathy first, thinkers react with problem solving first.

Very basic example: Your friend comes in with their arm bleeding. Is your very first reaction?

"Oh no! What happened?" - Feeler

"You should go to the hospital!" or "Let me get something to wrap that", etc etc.

In general feelers are more likely to feel empathy for someone, even if they think they are dead wrong or disagree with them.

Judging (J) vs Perceiving (P)

This is about how you make decisions. And it has nothing to do with the dictionary definitions of judging and perceiving.

Some defining traits of Js:

Achieving the goal is more important than the process.

You are comfortable making decisions with limited information.

For Ps:

Being true to your moral system is more important than achieving the goal.

You prefer to collect more information before making decisions.

The side effect of these two things means Js tend to have steadier lives with more commitment, while Ps tend to have a broader range of experiences and a bigger variety of life experiences.

---

In practice: Even though its just 4 variables, 90% of people alive fit comfortably into their personality bucket.

I had a new boss at my company. After talking to him, I internally guessed at his type (ESTJ), then asked him if he ever took a Myers-Briggs test. He said yes, he got ESTJ but didn't really know what to do with that info.

ESTJ is the same as my type but with S instead of N. So the big practical difference between me and my new boss is that I start thinking with abstractions/big picture, while he starts thinking with nuts and bolts details.

In my reporting I make sure I include plenty of specific details and reasoning to back up statements, which he really responds well to and digs into.

I could talk about this for hours but I'm not sure anyone will ready it anyway :-D

Given that Myers-Briggs is known pseudoscience B.S., asking people to take it should be a strong negative signal about the party making the request.

Government needs to be sued for the ASVAB.

Years ago, when I was still in tech, an interviewer asked me how to time something using burning rope, or something like that. Most have probably seen the puzzle.

I'd seen it before, but couldn't remember how to do it, and couldn't figure it out.

I said "Just tell me the answer."

He recommended me for hire anyway.

Months later I asked him why he asked such a ridiculous question. He said he wanted to know how I think. So I asked him, how do I think?

He didn't really have an answer. He either hadn't thought that far ahead while planning the interview, or didn't have enough information to tell him how I think, or he was too polite to say that I really just don't think.

The "I just want to see how you think" line was always BS. Like they can actually tell.

The people using these questions just want some magical button to push that supposedly will tell them whether you're "good" or not -- without them having to think about the objective merits of your abilities and experience or how it fits into the job description, or any of that fuzzy, messy stuff.

IQ is a thing during literally everything.

US citizen/resident here: I've been submitted to a lot of logic puzzles as a web and software developer--asking me to solve complex algorithmic problems I'd never work on in the actual job; that has been pretty common. However, I've only ever had to take (what was equivalent to) an IQ test once, when applying to a job at Dish network. I was so annoyed that I quit halfway through and withdrew my application.