Even a seasoned expert who literally writes card shuffling software would have a difficult time writing a well-explained solution on a whiteboard in 30 minutes.

Even a seasoned expert who literally writes card shuffling software would have a difficult time writing a well-explained solution on a whiteboard in 30 minutes. Sure. We used to give an hour, and HR reduced it to 45 minutes. I'd rather have more time. Also, you can dial up the stringency of this particular question to an expert level where hours could be used. Or, as you admit below, it can be dialed down considerably. Around 50% are given extremely poor ratings, like not even getting any type of coherent solution, even inefficient and not handling corner cases. You could also dial it back to where you accept a coherent, inefficient solution that at least shows an awareness of corner cases. This process just filters out candidates who are perfectly capable of solving the problem as a form of severe risk aversion against possibly hiring someone who lacks sufficient technical skills. So "myopia" in your view is the delusion that such a practice is anything more than that? There are plenty of people in our industry who know that's what it's really for and who know how bad whiteboard interviews are at this task. That doesn't mean the goal is worthless. It seems that many want the goalposts lowered, such that actually understanding anything isn't required anymore. We know the test is bad and that something better should be developed. What I'm arguing against is lowering the standards and getting rid of the test altogether.