I personally think that while it has some plausible theories, it fails to account for a good chunk of human (and other animal) behaviors.
Sexual selection is perhaps the most prominent wellspring of examples of evolutionary psychology failing IMHO. What evolutionary benefit is there to human females selecting for cumskin beanstalks? And then there's the bird kingdom, with peahens selecting for the most gaudy peacocks and don't even get me started on bowerbirds. Male bowerbirds build elaborate bowers for the sole purpose of attracting a mate. I believe the bowers simply get abandoned after mating season, but don't quote me on that. I fail to see how any of the aforementioned selection criteria are in any way conducive to survival (barring cumskin in regions where sunlight is scarce as cumskin is better at extracting vitamin D from sunlight).
Sexual selection is far from the only avenue of examples however. Many humans exhibit self-destructive behavior throughout their lifetimes in one way or another, from mutilation of one's own flesh to anorexia. There is plainly no evolutionary benefit to crippling oneself, yet it happens all the time. Here's another example with a very different flavor. Surely sharpness of the mind can only be evolutionarily beneficial, no? Yet most people are too dull to understand even the most everyday things. Too dull to see through even the most thinly veiled (((deceptions))).
Lastly, I want to touch upon the idea that "women choose good genes". Like I hinted at earlier, by what natural metric does a tall cumskin have universally better genes than an ethnic manlet? Even ethnic toilets prefer tall cumskins after all. And while there's a grain truth to women choosing good genes (cripples and genetic defects don't get much pussy) they surely do so unconsciously. I sincerely doubt they consciously write men off because they actively think their kids would be of insufficient genetic quality -- instead their tastes have been formed so as to be attracted to good genes. At least partially.
Sexual selection is perhaps the most prominent wellspring of examples of evolutionary psychology failing IMHO. What evolutionary benefit is there to human females selecting for cumskin beanstalks? And then there's the bird kingdom, with peahens selecting for the most gaudy peacocks and don't even get me started on bowerbirds. Male bowerbirds build elaborate bowers for the sole purpose of attracting a mate. I believe the bowers simply get abandoned after mating season, but don't quote me on that. I fail to see how any of the aforementioned selection criteria are in any way conducive to survival (barring cumskin in regions where sunlight is scarce as cumskin is better at extracting vitamin D from sunlight).
Sexual selection is far from the only avenue of examples however. Many humans exhibit self-destructive behavior throughout their lifetimes in one way or another, from mutilation of one's own flesh to anorexia. There is plainly no evolutionary benefit to crippling oneself, yet it happens all the time. Here's another example with a very different flavor. Surely sharpness of the mind can only be evolutionarily beneficial, no? Yet most people are too dull to understand even the most everyday things. Too dull to see through even the most thinly veiled (((deceptions))).
Lastly, I want to touch upon the idea that "women choose good genes". Like I hinted at earlier, by what natural metric does a tall cumskin have universally better genes than an ethnic manlet? Even ethnic toilets prefer tall cumskins after all. And while there's a grain truth to women choosing good genes (cripples and genetic defects don't get much pussy) they surely do so unconsciously. I sincerely doubt they consciously write men off because they actively think their kids would be of insufficient genetic quality -- instead their tastes have been formed so as to be attracted to good genes. At least partially.
Last edited:
