I wish I could upvote this many times. This "just so" reasoning about evolution is basically pure pseudosience, and yet it is so prevalent in so many books, seminars, videos of today... It's like people assume that if they just think up of some reason that would losely make some vague sense and use some of evolutionary terms, if there is a way to picture a mechanism that they are describing and if that mechanism in the picture would have some evolutionary mechanics - that it automaticallt means that it applies to reality, to our physical historical evolution and the exact way that it played out; that they understand the evolutionary traits of those behaviors/qualities...
It's like they think that just because evolution itself is basically a status quo in the scientific community, then any other random preposterous bs argument that you make about it, or just use the evolutionary terms in, would somehow automatically by association have as much predictive power/internal coherence/pure basic connection to reality as the evolution itself. It's a disgrace this is so prevalent nowadays... It is a clear sign that whoever writes the content is no real scientist.
What irks me is that the every time someone finds an evolutionary reason for something, it is just as easy to find an evolutionary reason to explain the opposite of it, which makes the explanation useless.
For example, "men evolved to be promiscuous because having many children gave the biggest chance at surviving offspring" makes sense until you realize "men evolved to be faithful because nurturing their children gave them the biggest chance at surviving offspring" makes just as much sense.
When your theory can explain everything, it can explain nothing.
Yes, it's called evolutionary psychology and it is (to paint with a broad brush that doesn't accurately describe everyone researching related concepts) bullshit.
It's like they think that just because evolution itself is basically a status quo in the scientific community, then any other random preposterous bs argument that you make about it, or just use the evolutionary terms in, would somehow automatically by association have as much predictive power/internal coherence/pure basic connection to reality as the evolution itself. It's a disgrace this is so prevalent nowadays... It is a clear sign that whoever writes the content is no real scientist.