>Anyway, the philosopher purports to address a fundamental flaw in the evo psyche framework/theory, but she seems to be simply taking issue with methodological

>Anyway, the philosopher purports to address a fundamental flaw in the evo psyche framework/theory, but she seems to be simply taking issue with methodological issues: she alleges that evo psyche draws broad conclusions about all of humanity by interviewing a few college students--effectively she seems to allege that the field lacks rigor (which is odd because she also disclaims that individual evo psychologists are serious thinkers). If her characterization is accurate, this is indeed a real problem, but it's not a flaw in the framework This is her secondary critique, her primary critique is that Evo Psycho's pivotal hypothesis has absolutely no warrant.