"<a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hppbxV9C63g&amp;t=35m13s"">35:13</a> - (paraphrasing) "If people go in and take a standardized test with a high fever", the score will not be a good estimate of their G-factor. If they retake the test when healthy, their score will go up and that will be a better estimate. But you can't say their G-factor increased between the two tests."<br><br>Bullshit. That's exactly what you CAN say. If it was just a poor estimate like he claims, then we wouldn't see only an increase. We'd see scores ranging all over, above and below the norm when people are sick. If weak, sickly people consistently perform poorly on these tests (demonstrating a low G-factor) and healthy strong people consistently perform better, that means G-factor is correlated to health. It seems as though he wants to believe g-factor is only related to genetics, not health in this case.<br><br>Indeed, what is health, if not a momentary expression of genetics? The problem (for him) may be that we can impact health in the moment. Over hours, days, weeks, and months. We control our health for better or worse in many ways. But his paradigm of an immutable g-factor doesn't allow for this.