I'm studying a general broad psychology degree right now (so classes in a bit of everything) and the feeling I've always gotten when we've discussed evolutionary psychology is that it currently gets a bit of a side-eye from the different psychological fields for much the same reason Freudian style psychoanalysis does. They're both pretty unverifiable. They are how they are because they are.     For example, an evolutionary psychological explanation for getting (sometimes) different outcomes between sexes in spatial/language tests runs along the lines of maybe that's because historically, men needed better spatial skills because they roamed further to hunt while women needed better language skills to mediate conflicts that, as the generally smaller sex, could be fatal for them if they escalate. It's a nice simple theory that makes superficial sense but it can never move past theory because there's simply no way to gather evidence to support it. It's also somewhat reductionist, which is always a warning sign with psychology that something is hinky. If a theory or the outcome of a study doesn't come with at least a dozen caveats, it definitely doesn't encapsulate more than a tiny segment of humanity.