We still give IQ tests, they are just IQ tests that have a cultural background required. When we ask an applicant to solve a problem we do not expect them to h

We still give IQ tests, they are just IQ tests that have a cultural background required. When we ask an applicant to solve a problem we do not expect them to have seen before, we are testing their intelligence, even if we then proceed to expect them to turn this into code. Even then, plenty of the Google interview questions aren't really any different from the test she received. IQ tests have sections that it doesn't sound like that test included, such as analogy tests or word memorization. The test she received was tailored to the logical, computational thinking required for programming, not generically designed to measure "intelligence". The major difference between then and now is that they were willing to train people with no prior experience. Even in this story, I note they were screening a very limited pool of applicants. I wonder what would happen if we went into high schools and conducted universal tests of potential: could we find (and possibly hire) large numbers of people with enormous aptitude who had never considered programming?