Maybe he was being ironic, or not even ironic but using the word sophisticated in it's narrow meaning of complex. In the same way one might describe flat earthers as having a sophisticated world view.
If you believe in a sophisticated explanation where a simple explanation exists, you're probably a believer of nonsense. Occam's razor, basically.
You say you have found an ally in someone who is known for his controversial take on intelligence and heritability and who maintains that it is this inherited difference in intelligence that is responsible for social division within the US. You call his ideas on class and culture sophisticated. Then you say that you agree with him only on a certain specific claim about teaching truckers to code. (You = Scott Alexander)
Who is being intellectually dishonest here? NYT or Scott Alexander?
To dive deeper look at the criticisms of Murray and draw your on conclusion about the degree of sophistication of his assumptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Criticism_of_as...