Alexander is reviewing Del Giudice’s book, and, taking a cue from the author, he too hastily moves on. Which is too bad, because an inquiring reader might want to know: Has Rushton’s theory been empirically disproven? Is it a true thing or a false thing?
Rushing to accuse Alexander of dishonesty or cowardice would be too simplistic. He admirably avoided the opportunity to point and sputter (“Pseudo-scientific racism! Thoughtcrime! Let’s get him fired go piss on his grave!”) Nor is his unwillingness to engage this subject head-on necessarily due to a faint heart. As Sam Harris found out the hard way, once you touch this third rail, you cannot easily let it go: it will hold you in its thrall long past your own point of interest, distracting you from other important projects. So perhaps Alexander’s crimestop is a wise choice after all.
Your first instinct is to say that for Alexander to not discuss Rushton at length is “too bad”. This is a Bolshevik position, evaluating everything from the point of view of what it does for class struggle. “You are either with us or against us.” Yes, there is a fight going on there, and it is an important fight, but not everyone is interested, or has a stomach for it. The wise course would be to leave them alone.
It’s too bad because he’s telling a fascinating story with enormous societal implications and along the way mentions a potentially *very* relevant and important aspect, only to rush past it. And that’s too bad! In the end, I do reach the conclusion that he probably did the smart thing — and it’s too bad that the current politcal climate makes it so.