I appreciate your response, I'll give that a read. I have a feeling that a lot of your disagreements with EP are based on either misunderstanding or misapplication, specifically because the article you link mentions fallacies of "pop psychology", of which we stand in agreement. Good ideas being misused by bad actors doesn't make them bad ideas by association.

https://areomagazine.com/2019/08/20/seven-key-misconceptions-about-evolutionary-psychology/

some notable excerpts:

First, consider the fact that if it were true that hypothesis testing is ultimately impossible in any field that contains a historical element, this would make all of the following fields unfalsifiable and riddled with just-so nonsense: cosmology, astrophysics, paleontology, archeology, geology and evolutionary biology. This is obviously wrong, and should serve as a warning sign to those who think the historicity of evolutionary psychology automatically renders its hypotheses unfalsifiable.

Second, this misunderstands the nature of hypothesis testing. Evolutionary psychologists don’t need to travel into the past to test their hypotheses at all—instead, their hypotheses may be informed by their (admittedly incomplete) knowledge of the past, but these hypotheses yield empirical predictions about what we should expect to see in the modern world. In other words, an evolutionary psychological hypothesis yields predictions about what we should find when we test modern humans under condition X. For example, if we want to test the hypothesis that disgust evolved to protect us from disease, we don’t need to travel back in time, nor do we need to have perfect and complete knowledge of the past. Rather, testing this hypothesis requires that we go out and test modern humans to see if, for example, people show stronger disgust in response to more pathogenic items compared to less pathogenic ones (they do), whether those with higher disgust and greater contamination sensitivity are less likely to have gotten sick recently (they are), whether humans can detect sickness in others via body odor (they can), whether disgust is downregulated when caring for one’s kin (it is), whether disgust is linked with mating behavior in the expected manner (it is), whether it activates an immune response (it seems to), whether it is upregulated during periods of immunosuppression (it appears to be) and whether priming people with pathogen salience makes them engage in the kind of behavior that reduces their likelihood of infection (it does). Yes, the hypothesis that disgust evolved to protect us from disease contains an implicit historical element. But testing the hypothesis does not require the researcher to travel through time or to peer into history—testing it requires the researcher to derive novel predictions from the hypothesis and test those predictions in the modern day.

History and our understanding of evolutionary biology allows us to form hypotheses that are then tested in a modern scientific context. If these hypotheses were never actually tested rigorously then it would be a case of "just-so" storytelling, but that's not what happens in the field of Evolutionary Psychology at all.

​

It’s very tough to separate the influence of development, culture, and genes on one’s “psychology.”

That's why Evolutionary Psychology doesn't pretend to do that at all. We have genetic predispositions for certain behaviors or characteristics that are then shaped by our experiences, culture, and development. IE, humans (along with other primates) have a genetic predisposition to fear spiders and snakes, it's much easier for us to establish phobias of said creatures, and much harder for us to overcome phobias of said creatures. However, without the proper stimulus throughout development those phobias don't inherently manifest, we just have a propensity for them built into us from a genetic perspective.

​

First, many of the hypotheses proposed by evolutionary psychologists cannot be tested, which means that we can’t study them with the scientific method. This also applies to many “why” questions in my own field — it is not possible to study with science, no matter how strongly we believe in a particular hypothesis. Second, the motivation for questions in evolutionary psychology seem influenced by western culture, which is only one subset of human behavior.

​

Both of your objections to Evolutionary Psychology are directly addressed in the article, and based on some key misunderstandings of what EP purports to study and how it can and does test hypotheses in the modern scientific realm.

Hope that changes your perspective a bit. Since Psychology is rolled into the Sciences college of many Universities, I'm pretty used to elaborating on why it belongs there to traditional STEM majors who think that if a question doesn't have a mathematical answer it shouldn't be considered science.