Correlation is not causation. Dr. Haier must've said highly correlated a hundred times. That is a clear indication your results leave a lot to be desired. This human intelligence scoring system is another failed attempt to boil humanity down to one "factor." As a young black kid, I certainly had my fair share of people make me aware that I was likely to fail; at basically everything. It wasn't until I dropped out of college and started working, where the only thing that matters is outcomes, that people stopped trying to measure my "G-factor" and saw my ability to reason and solve problems as the value I brought to the table. No one cares about your G factor in the real world; can you get it done or not? I would likely score poorly on a G-factor evaluation or IQ test. Still, I have specific skills that I identified early and worked on maximizing to put myself in a position to succeed. I also read a ton, so I don't believe everything I see on YouTube 😉. You can't completely understand what a human being can do with one analysis; it's inherently dismissive. So it's not surprising that people have a visceral, adverse reaction to this science.,(reply>), True correlation does not equal causation, but that doesn't mean correlation is meaningless. That phrase comes from teaching people to not evoke causative associations between things that are simply correlated, since spurious correlations can and do exist. Yet, if something is correlated time and time again, that is a strong linkage that gives an association even if the underlying mechanisms are not known or directly measured. The phrase is meant to avoid weak associations based on spurious correlations, but a highly, repeated, correlation isn't something to ignore.<br><br>In the real world, no, no one cares about the g factor, yet, a high g factor correlates with likelihood to more successfully complete a given task. Hence, indirectly, it does care about it, as performance is highly correlated with it. With that said, this is only performance within areas where the g factor has higher precedence. In purely labor oriented jobs, as an example, this is unlikely to have a large impact. <br><br>In terms of those telling you you're likely to fail... ignore them. You ultimately define your success (ignoring the complex interactions, luck, and such in the world). <br><br>"You can't completely understand what a human being can do with one analysis"<br><br>I think this is a misunderstanding of IQ. You can have a high IQ and fail, you can have a low (to an extent) IQ and succeed. Having a high g factor simply makes certain tasks easier, as you can process and incorporate new information more easily towards a specific task of your choosing. No one, credible, within the intelligence research sphere thinks IQ is a measurement that deterministically defines ones performance or ability. It is a probabilistic one. Those with a higher IQ 'tend' to do better, but that isn't a guarantee, and the same with those with a lower IQ tend to do worse, but that isn't a guarantee. Hence, yeah, if you have measured your IQ or not, don't let that number define who you are... as it isn't the only factor in success (whatever that may mean to you).