The basic issue is: the Times article isn't really very good (possibly repurposed to focus on Slate Star Codex after all the controversy pre-publication?) and relies largely on sort of gesturing vaguely at small snippets of his writing around controversial topics.
This makes it pretty simple for Scott to parry the specific allegations or implications in his response here. But I feel like anybody who takes an honest look at his writing would have to admit:
He believes in IQ and intelligence heritability, specifically with at least a significant genetic component.
He doesn't like feminists (not all but a much broader swath than his response implies). Maybe you could say he's moderated on this over the years.
His response heavily implies that these things are not true. It strikes me as "technically true" in roughly the same way he's criticizing the Times piece for being.
This makes it pretty simple for Scott to parry the specific allegations or implications in his response here. But I feel like anybody who takes an honest look at his writing would have to admit:
He believes in IQ and intelligence heritability, specifically with at least a significant genetic component.
He doesn't like feminists (not all but a much broader swath than his response implies). Maybe you could say he's moderated on this over the years.
His response heavily implies that these things are not true. It strikes me as "technically true" in roughly the same way he's criticizing the Times piece for being.