I'm not agreeing with everything this author says, but some of his arguments are similar to the ones I have expressed in the past myself, after studying how some opinion writer arrives at a particular conclusion (by going backwards, finding only those studies which support his/her views, and then expressing those views as clearly backed by science, while ignoring all the studies which show something different).
But then his examples of women in STEM vs. psychology and so on really would require much more fleshing in, because the reasons women and men pick certain fields and not others is based on a myriad of factors, not just some innate preference, or socially acquired preference).
I think in general the fact that many of the arguments in this context, by those who are not in a particular field, are on a simplistic level (I, at least, found the deeper level thinking very hard, both intellectually and emotionally, and it took me a decade), with strong social rewards from agreeing to one final conclusion without that work. Those who work in a particular relevant field suffer from a slightly different complication, and that is the isolation of various sub-fields of inquiry from each other.
So if all in your camp think the same way, the peers reviewing your articles will not bring up problems which scholars in an adjacent field immediately would.
Where I do agree with the writer is that intelligent people are better at defending their own biases, and that being curious and humble are very helpful characteristics for all researchers to cultivate.
That, plus being taught proper methods would take us much further. But we seem to be veering away from that rather than towards it.
Still, the fact that people are rewarded, by their peer groups, for irrational thinking is a huge part of the problem, and so is the way online social media can mete punishment for wrong-think.