I just finished _The Blank Slate_ a few weeks ago. I had the overriding impression that it could have been 50% shorter had he been a little less defensive. Too much of the book seemed to be pre-emptive explanations to defuse potential criticisms or misinterpretations of some of his arguments. I've never read a book like this before, so maybe that style is common to the genre and I just didn't know to expect it?
It's probably defensive because most folks in the sociology / humanities departments _hate_ evolutionary psychology, sociobiology etc. and call it fascist, racist, elitist. Trust me on this, I know their reactions on such topics.
Yeah, considering that the evolutionary psychologists don't actually understand evolution, their defensiveness is expected: http://www.slate.com/id/2124503/
