He's wrong on those other aspects in large part. Details are in the other comment, but I know enough about Buss to be able to judge that his take-down of Buss is correct. The fact that he too makes incorrect assumptions doesn't mean that he's wrong about the ones Buss makes. As noted elsewhere, I know enough about the problems with Buss to not have to take this guy’s word for it. It was simply a short-hand way to make it available to you without me having to type it all and and further document it.

Here’s a different takedown of Buss that comes to a lot of the same conclusions.

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0059-2

“Within evolutionary psychology, David Buss’s work on the evolution of jealousy is used as one example of the reverse engineering approach (see pp. 59–64). Jealousy in men is primarily triggered by sexual infidelity, whereas emotional infidelity is a more powerful trigger for women. Buss attributes the difference to the natural selection of an adapted response; for men, paternity is unsure, so it makes sense that jealousy would operate to prevent sexual infidelity, whereas for women, there is no doubt about maternity, but there is doubt about long-term commitment. Jealousy is thus a reaction to the differing evolutionary problems of men and women. Richardson describes the evidence offered by Buss as “social psychological” in character: surveys of men’s and women’s preferences, differing responses to jealousy “scenarios,” cross-cultural studies, and the like.

Still, the critique is not centered on the adequacy or inadequacy of the psychological evidence offered by Buss (ground that has been more extensively covered by Buller 2005), but rather on the failure to demonstrate that natural selection is the explanation. Thus, Buss has shown consistency between the evolutionary model and the psychological data, but he has not shown that the data follow from the constraints provided by the environment in ancestral times. According to Richardson, Buss, and other evolutionary psychologists, “Having assumed the ‘fact’ of design, they ‘explain’ the complex structures and behaviors we see as the consequence of natural selection, often without independent evidence. They do not argue for design but from form to function and then again from function to form” (p. 86, emphasis in original).”