We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
So asks Newsweek. (I resent the "we" in the question, because I hardly ever do those things.)
The article discusses how thin the science is of Evolutionary Psychology. It is. Whenever the issue of nature/nurture comes up, I find people making arguments which ignore two of the most basic aspects of human nature: 1. mankind's ability to adapt to almost anything and to create his own environment, and 2. mankind's obligatory social and culture-creating impulses.
It is innate to man to create cultures which reflect at least some aspects of human nature, but no culture can eliminate the beast in him. Thank goodness for that.
People ignore those two basic aspects of human nature because your nature and how you were nurtured determines how you deal with those 'basic aspects'. The nature/nurture comes first. If a little kid is nurtured in a closet and raped and beaten, sure, he'll make an adaptation to almost anything. How obligated he'll feel to answer his social and culture-creating impulses is anyone's guess. That's why they have shrinks.