Surely you're aware that a tremendous amount of ink and (social-)scientist hours have been spent doing "science" with the presumption that there "are no genes for IQ" etc., so it makes sense to be on guard against biased writing (at least by publication/file-drawer bias) on the topic.
You have gwern wrong. He's an unbiased scientist on this topic.
At best this is "the other guy swung first." At worst it is just a straw man. What you claim the other guys do is irrelevant. Territory defense is irrelevant. Facts are relevant and fist-fights do not uncover them. Why can't the critique proceed on a higher level than "those Xists are deliberately lying again"?
If your way of judging a paper is to look at who wrote it, then conclude that the paper is bad based on some kind of guilt by association with the "wrong school" then you are not being honest with yourself.
The nobler objective is not to discredit and guard against "nurturists" but to do justice to reality. Cognitive science shouldn't be so much like a kung fu movie...
[To gwern, unprovoked] You are attempting the early dismissal of some viewpoint you disagree with on a more or less political grounds but this has not very much to do with science.
[Next reply] Why can't the critique proceed on a higher level than "those Xists are deliberately lying again"?
You seem to be suffering from some cognitive dissonance here.
You have gwern wrong. He's an unbiased scientist on this topic.