It's not what? Your train of thought seems to have gotten cut off. The huge company story is fun too, but it also seems to have gotten cut off not going anywhere. You're right that the "internet myth" considers it to be legally indefensible, and thus, colloquially, illegal. But we already covered that earlier, so whatever it was you were trying to add on top of that also appears to have gotten cut off as well. Was this message delivered via Outlook?

Regardless, you vastly overestimate how much effort is put into hiring. The vast majority of companies would never study the effectiveness of IQ tests to know if they are useful or not. If they had a gut feeling that an IQ test would be helpful they would try it on that basis, except they wouldn't try it because they've read online that IQ test use is illegal; meaning that it is considered to be legally indefensible.

It's not legally indefensible. It's not illegal in any sense. It's not proscribed. It's presumptively fine in white-collar employment. Large companies screen candidates with general cognitive tests. Well-established companies administer those tests and brag about their large clients. None of this is a secret.

So it's difficult to see how to square what was previously said on this thread, about IQ testing in employment being "illegal" or "legally indefensible". Those are trivially falsifiable claims. Every HR department in the world knows that.

It would appear my message was also arrived malformed. What a terrible week for tech!

What I said, quoting from earlier, was "considered to be legally indefensible". Whether or not it is legally defensible is for the courts to decide, but it is clear that it is considered to be. Unfortunately your full comment didn't arrive, but what we did get was "This is just a big Internet myth" which appears to have you echoing that it is considered to be legally indefensible. You cannot have a "myth" without belief.

Where the law is abundantly clear (YMMV, law is jurisdictional) is that hiring criterion must be related to the job. It asserts that selection tests must be reasonable, bona fide, and tailored to actual job duties. That does not strictly prohibit IQ tests, but there are effectively zero jobs where an IQ test would be seen as reasonable, bona fide, and tailored to the actual job. Whatever exception you can find is just that: an exception.

It doesn't prohibit IQ testing at all and your argument fails empirically because large companies do in fact broadly employ IQ testing. None of the rest of your comment makes sense in light of that fact.

It looks like your message got cut off again. Allstate is well known for not using IQ tests, rather their proprietary JEPS assessment, so be aware that whatever followed to connect IQ tests and Allstate is missing.

Moreover, on JEPS, Allstate does not use JEPS in my jurisdiction. There is no public knowledge as to why, but legal compliance would be a reasonable explanation. Use of JEPS may even be illegal.

Perhaps you had a different company in mind?

The opposite thing is true of Allstate; they're a banner Wonderlic client. You can't just bluff your way through this.

It is true that Allstate is a Wonderlic client, but Wonderlic does not use IQ tests, so the connection is not clear. Did your message get truncated again?

Could it be that you are using "IQ test" as some catchall term for any type of cognitive test? You could define it that way in a vacuum, but that is not how it is being used here. The initial comment was clear about how it was being used. In context, "IQ test" was being used to refer to IQ tests that are academically recognized as IQ tests (WAIS, Stanford–Binet, etc.). HR department pet assessments do not fall under that.