What jumps out immediately at me as I read this paper is that the author is not a behavioral geneticist, but an economist,
http://nymag.com/news/media/51015/index3.html
and most of the people he credits for helping him on the paper are other economists. He cites psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen a lot, but Baron-Cohen's view of autism is not yet the mainstream view among autism researchers.
Other economists are examining behavior genetics issues, and one group of economists has published a paper updating their fellow social scientists on issues of human behavorial genetics that are little understood among most social scientists.
Chabris, C. F., Hebert, B. M., Benjamin, D. J., Beauchamp, J., Cesarini, D., van der Loos, M., ... & Laibson, D. (2012). Most reported genetic associations with general intelligence are probably false positives. Psychological Science.
http://coglab.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris2012a-FalsePositiv...
"At the time most of the results we attempted to replicate were obtained, candidate-gene studies of complex traits were commonplace in medical genetics research. Such studies are now rarely published in leading journals. Our results add IQ to the list of phenotypes that must be approached with great caution when considering published molecular genetic associations. In our view, excitement over the value of behavioral and molecular genetic studies in the social sciences should be tempered—as it has been in the medical sciences—by a recognition that, for complex phenotypes, individual common genetic variants of the sort assayed by SNP microarrays are likely to have very small effects.
"Associations of candidate genes with psychological traits and other traits studied in the social sciences should be viewed as tentative until they have been replicated in multiple large samples. Failing to exercise such caution may hamper scientific progress by allowing for the proliferation of potentially false results, which may then influence the research agendas of scientists who do not realize that the associations they take as a starting point for their efforts may not be real. And the dissemination of false results to the public may lead to incorrect perceptions about the state of knowledge in the field, especially knowledge concerning genetic variants that have been described as 'genes for' traits on the basis of unintentionally inflated estimates of effect size and statistical significance."
So my caution here would be that an unpublished working paper like this (a common form of preliminary sharing of speculative results in the discipline of economics) is very unlikely to be the definitive word on this interesting topic.