This would have been a more interesting article if they had people from the evo psych camp respond to the claims. It seems like Gizmodo wanted to do a "Boom!" takedown of evo psyche ("We at Gizmodo have long rolled our eyes at evolutionary psychology..."). Anyway, the philosopher purports to address a fundamental flaw in the evo psyche framework/theory, but she seems to be simply taking issue with methodological issues: she alleges that evo psyche draws broad conclusions about all of humanity by interviewing a few college students--effectively she seems to allege that the field lacks rigor (which is odd because she also disclaims that individual evo psychologists are serious thinkers). If her characterization is accurate, this is indeed a real problem, but it's not a flaw in the framework and it hardly feels deserving of the sensational headline or the disparaging, condescending tone of the article (to be clear, only the Gizmodo editorializing comes off as condescending/disparaging; the philosopher is quite a lot more polite/reasonable).