I don't think the article's argument is that Pinker is a bad writer or doesn't know how to write for an academic audience; it's that Pinker is missing the point

I don't think the article's argument is that Pinker is a bad writer or doesn't know how to write for an academic audience; it's that Pinker is missing the point when he tries to tell others how to make academic writing better. I watched one of Pinker's lectures on writing, and thought it was mostly fluff, full of snarky "look how awful this scientific writing is, ha ha."