If IQ in general is measured subjectively, how can it ever be tested empirically or expressed in an objective absolute? And if the expression of G factor doesn't rise or fall, but is merely expressed or withheld based on a literally infinite number of factors that affect cognition, how can the measurements be said to be controlled? If you're using one uncontrolled IQ test to validate another uncontrolled IQ test, how does that exclude the possibility that they're both erroneous? And if the person assessing your tests, whatever that array looks like, (or how you feel or where you tested) how can any of this be said to be controlled? It seems the answers to basic questions about the empiricality claimed aren't very systematic. Systematic testing and observation are the fundamental aspects of empirical data. But every attempt to define the systematic process whereby his conclusions have ostensibly been drawn are met with something more closely resembling obfuscation. It all winds up being inexplicable and esoteric. Or circular. The point of all of it is to determine whether this thing exists, and to identify a reproducible method for testing its existence. The fact that it is being called or used as a diagnostic tool makes the burden for objectivity even heavier. I'm only a half hour in, but I still have no idea what he's measuring, what metric he's using, how he's controlled for error, or how the information extracted therefrom can be used to alter future outcomes. The deeper he explains, the more mysterious it becomes. I will reserve further critique for when I finish the entire episode, unless I'm overwhelmed with another fury of unresolved issues. (Very pleased you're safe.),(reply>), Read The Bell Curve, this stuff had been around for decades, yet leftist MSM/social media keep ignoring it.