I agree, I used to bash evolutionary psychology myself, but then I realized: We know how "accurately" the media portray research in physics, mathematics, biolog

I agree, I used to bash evolutionary psychology myself, but then I realized: We know how "accurately" the media portray research in physics, mathematics, biology and chemistry; how do we figure that the way they represent evolutionary psychology is any better? Instead of arguing against strawmen like the article does, why not first listen to what evolutionary psychologists actually have to say? I don't know how representative Steven Pinker is for the field of evo-psych in general, but I found that he explains his reasoning very clearly and understandably. Steven Pinker debunks the idea of a blank slate: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate.html http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_b... Richard Dawkins interviews Steven Pinker (really long, but I found it had some interesting insights about evolution and psychology): http://richarddawkins.net/article,3941,Steven-Pinker---The-Genius-of-Charles-Darwin-The-Uncut-Interviews,Steven-Pinker-Richard-Dawkins http://richarddawkins.net/article,3941,Steven-Pinker---The-G...