Not really. I did much better methodology in my PhD as a result of reading it.

And yet, I still find it difficult to convince people that the Big 5 model is not replicable.

This rebuttal is farcical. It begs the question. Of course tests designed to measure how well someone has integrated a certain educational pedagogy will be aced by scientists and phds.

You cannot defend G by saying some people you presume are smart can demonstrate that via testing. It’s “No true Scotsman” to the nth degree.

Whenever “smart” people start thinking outside their area of specialty this entire argument crumbles. There is no correlation between being smart in one area and smart about an unconnected discipline. Just listen to a few podcasts for all the evidence you need.

The bias and flaws in intelligence tests are well known and studied. You can’t argue for G without explaining why we can’t measure intelligence in any reliable way. Why people are supposedly so much smarter today than they were a century ago, and why intelligence tests are so culturally sensitive. Any decent test shouldn’t massively favor people based on geography.

G is bunk. It’s not for anyone to prove why. It’s for defenders of the fantasy to prove true.