I agree with the sentiment. A lot of this stuff seems to be retrofitted to the observation. You can explain a lot of things through evolution, but to explain all behaviour in terms of it leads to a lot quackery and pseudoscience.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of rigor in these types of papers; a lot of hand waving.

People also like to beat up (a ka vote down) people who are already lieing on the floor (evil grin).

How good is Arcs underflow checking?