I wouldn’t read too much into that, evolutionary psychology is a pseudoscience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
Psychology is already a field full of rough concepts, bad statistics, and low certainties, we mostly have no clue why we’re doing things right now. Adding millions of years and unprovable speculation surely doesn’t help.
If evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience (which is debatable to begin with), it’s that way not because our evolutionary history doesn’t inform our psychology but because our understanding of both those things is too immature for the questions most people are are trying to answer. But that in itself depends on the questions and the level of answer one finds acceptable. I’ve found Michael Tomasello’s book “The Evolution of Agency” perfectly proportionate in the kinds of questions it seeks to answer given the information it has, and I think the wild speculations I extrapolate from it are totally fine to share in random internet conversations.
