Some of this makes sense to me. I have come to see and believe one's mindset is often a reflection of the geography of their place.

Evolutionary psychology (EP) should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Gould and Lewontin had challenged an earlier sociobiology with their concept of spandrels which largely short circuits most EP approaches from the start. A huge hurdle to jump there.

Now Pinker makes good points in The Blank Slate about not adopting a wanton sui generis environmentalism. I think nature v nurture dichotomy should be scrapped.

But problems with EP aren’t the notion the mind is modular and emerges from an evolved brain. It’s with the specifics of their rhetoric, and well...polemic. Their master polemicist, Pinker, cut his teeth on a Chomsky derived language module, then not resting on his laurels, superseded the Hobbesian/Machiavellian basis of EP, by showing how social structure and historical framework seem to be more important to the human condition in two subsequent books detailing his somewhat problematic views that rates (vs absolute numbers) of violence have decreased over the generations and that the human condition has improved recently due to Enlightenment thinking. He doesn’t quite unpack the histories of the actual enlightenment. But his work does go well beyond EP adaptionist paeans to the Pleistocene.

A different way to approach this is the critique of the mismatching underpinnings of the fad paleo diet by Zuk in Paleofantasy. Some of the food choices may be fine on their own merits, but rationale dubious.

"Modern contexts, however, differ vastly from the environments that existed as human psychological mechanisms evolved. Many inputs now differ in quantity and intensity or no longer have the same fitness associations, thereby leading many mechanisms to produce maladaptive output. "

This is very interesting.. I assume it refers to the bombardment of information if the internet ..? And probably television too...