I don't know how people like him can come up with so much ideological bullshit that is very obviously proved wrong just by observing other species or consulting history.

If any of it was wrong not only, we would just not breed and select animals for specific traits but pretty much most of our civilisation wouldn't even exist as it does.

We got there precisely by selecting and using animals as tools and food security. Our farm animals are quite passive, precisely because we selected that trait.

There are some people who pay over 30K€ for the breeding of a specific horse in an attempt to create a race winner; and then we have guys like this, supposedly smart but who keep spiting nonsense and even pretend to have the authority of science behind him.

The evidence is right under everyone's nose. It is extremely hard to "prove" in a "scientific" (at some points statistics have too much interpretation behind them to be meaningful) way but anyone who is completely blinded by ideologies.

People who wouldn't be considered "smart" here have an old saying: "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree". They may not be smart but have infinitely more wisdom and what they say might be true more often than the "smart" peoples.

I would argue that behavioral genetics is extremely ideologically driven. This whole sub-field was started by a white supremacist (Francis Galton) with the aim of “proving” the superiority of the white race. The early days were wrought with pseudoscientific bullshit and unlike me complaining about it on a tech forum, the ideology of behavioral geneticist resulted in an actual policy and the horrors of eugenics.

If you want to find more about what makes Behavioral Genetics such a terrible “scientific” endeavor and how the whole field is driven by ideology instead of science, there is a whole book dedicated to the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misbehaving_Science