No, I'm not saying this at all or anything remotely like it. In fact, I'm saying the complete and total opposite of that. Evolutionary psychology claims that we are formed by things that were important to us in the Paleolithic, that our brains are essentially Stone Age brains in a modern skull, but that's absurd - for the reasons outlined in the SA story I just linked you. It's also absurd because although we don't know everything about that era, there's a lot we do know which does not fit in with the suppositions of evolutionary psychology. For example, if all women are purportedly biologically inclined to prefer taller men because they read as a better provider and protector that doesn't come out of the Paleolithic as evolutionary psychology claims, it comes out of the past 5 thousand years of patriarchy, where something like that was even remotely relevant.

And then there's the Mosuo, a contemporary culture, where the women are the heads of the families, and the women do all the farming - so they are quite obviously not looking for a man to be a provider. How does evolutionary psychology account for that? It doesn't - it just ignores it, because it doesn't work with their silly construct.

The entire point of this story which I said more than once is that evolutionary psychology would like to fit humans into neat boxes to explain things and that we are much more complex than that - across time, across cultures, across different environments. As I noted near the end, what makes a lot more sense is that human mating strategies are unlikely to conform to a single universal pattern - and that's just one example. All sorts of human strategies are likely to be highly variable depending on a variety of factors.

You are the one who kept asking me why we can't generalize from the Paleolithic and say that it's relevant to the present so I'm not quite sure how you turned on that question but in any case - I think we are finally a bit more in understanding of each other.