I'm about an hour into the video so if my critique or part of it is addressed later, it might undo it, but i prefer to write it now as the logic is fresh on my mind:<br><br>Let's admit that the G-factor is a serious thing, that it is a fact of life that can be reliably measured as one number, and that it informs us about something specific about intelligence. Essentially, the higher your G-factor is, the better.<br>That doesn't mean that the G-factor is the end all be all of measuring intelligence. I'll even go further. If we find that it's purely genetic and there's no way to improve it, it can be ignored for the most part. I'll explain why later.<br><br>My brother is someone that had always been extremely intelligent. Tested professionally with an IQ of 160 once and 144 another time. I've never been as smart as he high so i've lived all my life believing that people can indeed be "smarter" than you. I'd assume his G-factor to be very high.<br>Despite being extremely intelligent, he hasn't realized his potential. I'm convinced that he could have been my country's Elon Musk but he never had the drive. He never had the drive to be in a relationship and never had the drive to buy a home and had to be coached to get a good-paying job that is still somewhat unstable.<br>These things are examples of things most people would consider desirable, and "success" factors.<br>I on the other hand, have measured lower on IQ tests, but have achieved higher in what people would consider success, and what i consider success to be.<br>These are anecdotal evidence and don't represent much, but they highlight an important point, which is that a certain raw measure of intelligence which is genetic seems to be a scientific fact, yet having potential doesn't mean actualizing it.<br><br>Focusing solely or excessively on the G-factor would do a terrible thing for the human psyche, because people are lazy. Evolution made us lazy to help us survive, and now our laziness is a burden. <br>If you diagnose someone with a low G-factor, they will understand that they are stupid and that no amount of effort they can do will amount to anything, that they've drawn the short end of the stick that will kill their drive to improve. <br>Knowing about their G-factor might destroy the accomplishments they would have realized otherwise if they believed something that i also believe, which is that you get better at what you spend hours doing. <br>It's not that people with low G-factor won't get better at stuff they practice, it's that they might lose the motivation to even try because they won't get as good as others.<br>If you diagnose someone with a high G-factor, they might believe that they are just so gifted, think themselves better than the others, and don't put enough effort to get the rewards they should be getting since they are so gifted. The ego latches on to things like that, and feeding it seems dangerous.<br>One could argue that it could have the opposite effect and i believe that's a valid opinion that i've made up (sorry about the meta shit) but i think most people would use that information poorly rather than well, through no fault of their own, but because of our species vestigial burdens.<br><br>Essentially the G-factor and the IQ test, are a way to measure people's intelligence which is limited. It's not a deterministic measure of "success" and might even backfire. Which doesn't mean that it should be studied, but one must navigate very carefully around these ideas. <br>Other ideas, such as how to actualize your potential seem more interesting to me.<br>So that's why most people can ignore the G-factor, because no matter your score, you have to do the best you can with what you have, and it's probably on average not helpful to determine people's G-factor. Where it could be interesting is if you can determine better ways to help people actualize their potential depending on their G-factor, then it would become a tool that is really valuable, in my opinion.