I don't think it's that complicated. And I think that various reasons might explain portions of the problem. For example, maybe this reason explains 70% of the problem. We can use science, mathematics, and statistics to test hypothesis about this, and journalism to publicize the results of our tests, as this guy and the people he cites have done. But I don't think calling someone a reductionist sociologist without providing significant refutation is among the useful possible responses to the article.