No, it doesn't look like you've understood my point.

I'm asking why you are also picking a fight with reality when your actual beef is (probably) only with people.

I'm saying "you can't just talk about X; there's Xa and Xb, and Xa is really different from Xb; Xa is often bad but Xb is pretty much fine" and you're answering with "why are you defending X".

Because you're neither making the distinction that I pointed out, nor refuting that the distinction exists, we can't really communicate. We are constantly not even talking about the same thing. I don't have any point that doesn't depend on there being a huge gulf between theory and practice, and I can't discern any point that you're making that doesn't depend on the gulf being minimal to nonexistent.

For instance, when you say stuff like, "the focus on genes being insufficient to explain human behaviors", there is exactly zero about evolutionary psychology in theory that requires genes to be sufficient; it only needs genes to not be utterly irrelevant. But because it would be oh-so-convenient if there were a simple mapping from evolutionary pressure to gene and gene to behavior, you find specific ideas advanced by some people in evolutionary psychology that do presume this.