I would be critical of that article (and others) by any "Evolutionary Psychologist" (the author is one). Many do not consider "Evolutionary Psychology" as a pr

I would be critical of that article (and others) by any "Evolutionary Psychologist" (the author is one). Many do not consider "Evolutionary Psychology" as a proper Science (i subscribe to this camp) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psyc... Critics argue that many hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic. They allege that evolutionary psychology can predict many, or even all, behaviours for a given situation, including contradictory ones. Therefore, many human behaviours will always fit some hypotheses. Noam Chomsky argued: "You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.' You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it." As an example the same author has an article on the "Truthiness" of "Stereotypes" : https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/all-stereotypes-are-true-except-i-what-are-stereotypes https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-funda.... Applying it to "Blonde Bimbos", the Stereotype says "Blond Bimbos are dumb", while the other explanation says "Beautiful people (Blonde Bimbos are a subset) are more Intelligent" which is a direct contradiction!