I've seen "The Authoritarian Personality" recommended online (by philosophy minded people, not as accepted social science), so I think it's good to point out ho

I've seen "The Authoritarian Personality" recommended online (by philosophy minded people, not as accepted social science), so I think it's good to point out how flawed it is. There is a tendency for philosophy fans to excuse errors in work with, oh they are primarily a philosopher, and then turn around and say, cite Foucault's "Madness and Civilization" as a reliable source of information a paragraph later. In fact, this very article is a "review" (in the way NYRB does it) of a new edition of "The Authoritarian Personality" which calls him "a great polymath." Since this article is in some ways advertising the very thing you call "hardly the cornerstone" of his work, the best thing for the top comment to be to inform people of it's flaws. In fact, I think it's irresponsible for NYRB to publish this, and mention his stupid opinions about Jazz, which are not really on topic or important, and not mention criticisms of the re-release that prompted the piece.