He has admitted that part of his skepticism is due to the fact that he doesn't like the concept of intelligence in a general sense. He is far more critical of

He has admitted that part of his skepticism is due to the fact that he doesn't like the concept of intelligence in a general sense. He is far more critical of claims of heredity than he is of environment. Even half the level of scrutiny he applies to twin studies would invalidate nearly the entirety of sociological research on account of "not controlling for genetics". That is why I say he has an axe to grind. As for his credentials, he's an associate prof with little to no background in biology, psychology or the study of the brain. Steven Pinker, on the other hand is a full professor at Harvard (formerly MIT), and is the world's premier on the subject he's writing on.