I am not suggesting he's some red pill irrational ranting asshat or anything. And I admit it has been a couple years since I read it and I don't have a copy with me. But when I talk about preferences and career choices the twin studies are very unconvincing for the very blind spots I'm trying to point out. Of course twins growing up in similar cultures make similar life choices. They are operating with similar givens and similar worldviews and were exposed to similar media, schooling, and national cultures. I'm not disagreeing that there are base biological differences but arguing that he often creates arguments that bypass the issue that all society is culturally constructed and all biological, environmental, and scientific reality is heavy with cultural meaning. The vast majority of psych studies are also done with WEIRD subjects which makes using them to extrapolate quantifiable knowledge that can speak to all human's problematic. And I will have to pull quotes later but he does greatly underestimate and dismiss environment in a variety of ways. Just because he doesn't make claims about positive or negative that doesn't mean his work exists in a value free vacuum.
Most of us get frustrated that he makes these debates seem simple and his conclusions obvious when a deep understanding of the debates reveals that is not the case. He also misrepresents anthropologists (my background) which is just really annoying. I recall him accusing Geertz of ignoring biological impacts on human nature. Geertz wrote a whole essay on that!!
It is also endlessly frustrating that he suggests there is a standard social science model (HA that's hilarious if you're in any social science field) and that we think humans are blank slates (I've never ever encountered an academic who thinks that.) People walk away thinking poorly of a bunch of disciplines which I'd argue are vital for understanding humanity.
Anyway, if you want a more in depth criticism check out Thomas Eriksen's review in Social Anthropology