The naturalistic fallacy consists of deductions from the way things are to the way things ought to be. Most intelligent Pinkerites know this, and have a second-string argument lined up: they argue that since ought implies can, cannot implies ought not, and therefore the negative findings of psychologists have legitimate deductive moral consequences. (Dennett makes this argument somewhere; Will Wilkinson makes it online.) This seems to me a serious misreading of "ought implies can." In general, when social scientists find "facts" about human nature, these tend to be probabilistic, and tend to have large numbers of counterexamples. The following form of argument -- people are like X, X'es can't Y, therefore people can't Y, therefore they can't be expected to Y -- usually has counterexamples; a 10% rate of counterexamples wouldn't stop an academic psychologist, let alone David Brooks, from making the first claim. Therefore, "ought implies can" entails "people cannot be obligated to be outliers," or "the average life is basically ethical." But this is not by any means a universal axiom of moral systems; it's a fairly strong assertion, which is inconsistent with Plato's cave, with Augustine and Calvin, and presumably with Nietzsche.
"Ought implies can," for sociobiological "can," is a conversion rule of the same general type as utilitarianism. It isn't a fatuous rule but it doesn't, like, follow from first principles.