He does, I've had a correspondence with him before but it didn't really change my mind about him. His loyalty is to psychoanalysis and he subjugates all other theories to this whatever the evidence.
My beef about the nature/nurture dichotomy that rages on in his columns (and Walter?s) is that it's a false dichotomy. He creates false arguments to prop up psychoanalytical theories at the cost of more nuanced discussions (such as Sue Gerhardt's - although even she couldn't resist a daft pop at Steven Pinker which just made me wince) I haven't read anything to suggest any biologist, ethologist or evolutionary biologist would say genes are more of an influence over environments, except of course when it comes to auto responses (I don?t know the proper term) like breathing and blinking etc. It's just another version of determinism he comes out with, cultural determinism and that's not a fair reflection of the debate either as it polarises peoples opinion and there?s just no need for it.