One of his examples is that his kids are in the 99th percentile for height and weight despite not being visibly fat, thus he thinks that other parents are underfeeding their children. This doesn't make sense. Child obesity is in fact a significant problem; on average, US parents probably feed their kids too many calories, not too few.
The fact is that -- I don't know why, maybe measurement error at the doctor's office, which is common -- it's not that unusual for kids to be "outliers" in size. Anecdotally it seems to me like "99th percentile" large or "1st percentile" small kids (who appear neither fat nor scrawny) are a lot more than 2% of the population. the thing is, the official distribution of heights and weights for kids is very narrow, so a "99th percentile" kid is not that enormous, and a 1st percentile kid is not that tiny. Plus, kids' growth rates change enough over time that they usually grow out of "outlier" status. IMO, Ben's kids are normal-sized, their "99th percentile" status may very well be random fluctuation unrelated to how he feeds them, and he is really jumping to conclusions from inadequate data to conclude that most of his peers underfeed their kids.
I'll grant him that being better at cooking tasty food might make kids less likely to be picky eaters, but there's a lot of noise in that as well (I'm a pretty good cook and my kids often don't like what grownups think is delicious). And I also am skeptical that liberals are worse cooks than conservatives on average in the US. (remember, the OP Scott post was about politics!)
I have less objection to his overall point, which is a critique of altruism itself. Yes, people will never be as careful or as grounded, as effective, in helping others, if they're motivated primarily by getting good-boy/good-girl points, as if their practical self-interest is entangled.
I'm not sure that I buy that EA-style or progressive-style altruism is outright bad; for the most part, i think people aren't harming themselves by doing it, and even if they help suboptimally they may still be helping a little. I see people as mostly putting themselves first, with a little ineffectual flavor text to make them feel good about themselves, and maybe also a little genuine help going to people who need it, and I don't see a problem with the flavor text or the modest amount of help. I think charity is not obligatory and not the most important part of morality, but it's probably net good; and I'm not too fussy about whether people rationalize/exaggerate how good they are, if it makes them feel better. (I also think building AI is cool and have no moral objection to it, so I don't hold EAs blameworthy there either.)
I don't like the idea that we evaluate the goodness of "communities" by how "functional" they are, including via measuring fertility -- yes, in an evolutionary sense, fertility is "fitness", but that doesn't tell me why i should care about it. I don't want to be Satmar or Amish. If they are "virtuous", so much the worse for virtue!
https://icmi-proceedings.com/ICMI-E-virtue-under-pressure.html Tim Hwang is trying to make AIs with Christian values. this freaks me out, even though i suppose it shouldn't (Christians are not so overwhelmingly dominant worldwide that we wouldn't also have secular AIs)