That's true. Dan Carlin makes unfounded conclusions from time to time, which you do need to take with a grain of salt. However, he is very upfront with his admission that he is not a professional historian.
That's his brand, but I am not convinced that he lives up to that standard. Dude lacks intellectual humility big time, and seems to support scientific racism[0].
> Many readers also fail to see how asymmetrical any debate on this topic is. Whatever I say at this point, no matter how scientifically careful, appears to convey an interest in establishing the truth of racial differences (which I do not have and have criticized in others). Does it matter that Stephen J. Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man was debunked long ago, or that James Flynn now acknowledges that his eponymous effect cannot account for the race-IQ data? No, it doesn’t. This is a moral panic and a no-win situation (and Klein and my other “critics” know that). I did not have Charles Murray on my podcast because I was interested in intelligence differences across races. I had him on in an attempt to correct what I perceived to be a terrible injustice done to an honest scholar. Having attempted that, for better or worse, I will now move on to other topics.
He later, at the request of his audience, did a 2 hour talk with Klein. This is all (the quote above, the links) included in the page linked in parent.
You can draw your own conclusions.
