I don't tend to cite Pinker either because of the bias issue. I was using him to illustrate why one might not want to rely on experts. He is an expert. But his quality control isn't the best (I wouldn't characterize this as idiocy, just inattention to detail), and his objectivity isn't the best: he seems to quite like his cherries when they make a good topping for a compelling story. He usually comes up with good points anyway, because he doesn't get everything wrong, and those are typically worth deeper consideration than his detractors are willing to give them. (For instance, dismissing the chart as 4% of human history is a mistake when it comes to using it to think about now.) But I generally wouldn't cite a popular work of his as support for some claim. (I might use it to find references, but I'd read the reference.)

I've already said too much regarding Elle. It's not fair to her. She does a fine enough job, but not the job that I think needs doing, and I personally find her extremely difficult to communicate with. So I neither want to impugn her character, nor invite her over to defend herself so we can have another 20-comment-deep misunderstanding about what is even being said. Can we just leave it at: yes, I read Elle's articles; but no, it doesn't answer the key questions and it's only sort of even the style that I think is necessary?