Evolutionary psychology is currently rather fashionable and is certainly challenging and thought-provoking, but it does sometimes seem to depend rather suspiciously on finding an adaptive advantage for every human behaviour. Behaviours which are clearly not advantageous are explained by saying that they 'must have' been advantageous at some point in our evolutionary history and then finding a likely scenario. For example, our sweet tooth leads to massive overconsumption of sugar. This is obviously not likely to give our species an evolutionary advantage today, but it 'must have' done so when a sweet tooth meant a predilection for a diet of fruit. That rather neatly and conveniently shelters the evolutionary psychologists' claim from any possible falsifiability.
Evolution here becomes a kind of psychologist's unified 'theory of everything'.
The essential difference between the psychologist's theory of everything and the physicist's is that it is not even falsifiable in principle and seems in some of its formulations to have more in common with religion than with science. There is, to put it mildly, a degree of circularity in a theory which depends on the idea that certain characteristics confer an evolutionary advantage, if we begin by assuming that the organisms which have survived the evolutionary struggle are superior because they survived. Whilst there is no doubt much truth in that, it overlooks the r le played by sheer luck in the struggle for survival and cannot in itself provide justification for the claim that every characteristic of a surviving organism must have contributed to its success. Criticisms of Asch Asch's experiment has been criticised for being unrealistic to the extent that in the real world we expect to take decisions on subjects more complex and more important than the length of a line. In the real world, therefore, we might put up more of a fight to defend our point of view.