I think you've misunderstood my objection on every level. I'm not saying that every pop scientific article should be written so that a layperson can understand all proofs involved, and so on. I'm saying that given what I, as a layperson, can see in the article, his claims seems suspicious. They don't seem logically coherent. They seem to contradict themselves in obvious ways.
If a thinker can't present his ideas in a logically coherent way, there's no reason for me to go through the very time-consuming process of reading a long series of academic papers.
Reading his definition in that paper makes me even more suspicious of his argument here. It's a common problem among academics in specialist fields that they demonstrate a limited claim, and then state a much stronger claim for a popular audience. The claim in the abstract of the paper is that "perceptual systems tuned solely to fitness routinely outcompete those tuned to truth." The claim in the interview is that "an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness." Those aren't the same. The first is much stronger.
My suspicion is that he's taking his eccentric or exaggerated views and presenting them on the same level as the more reasonable ideas from his research.