#evolutionary approach

I don't think I really... understand this approach. I suppose it's just too abstract for me, which is ironic considering its nature and origin. Haha. I suppose it's just that the idea of having something common to such a general or broad group of people, seems like it would make you see the world in such a (again, ironically) narrow way.

Don't get me wrong though. On some level, it is fascinating that cross-cultural studies show that intro-extraversion, nuroticism, and phychoticism appear in different countries, with and despite the culture. It's kind of like figuring out that people know to smile when they're happy - it's not a cultural thing that it's a symbol for happiness. Isn't that weird?

At the same time, I can admit to myself openly that's it's something I can't fully comprehend, can't fully appreciate. I appreciate it on some level, but I think it's a shallow kind of appreciation.

I suppose one reason for this is something mentioned in the book, regarding the emotionality, activity, and sociability of babies. I just think that if the biological approach held true, then my siblings and I, by virtue of our genes, would have some level of similarity the way we were as babies, but no. We were actually really different. My sister was really, really cranky; my brother didn't care much and just kinda sat there being cute; and I was just really happy. So how do you explain that?

The same kind of incomprehension goes for evolutionary psychology. It's just too... abstract for me to understand. Like, if we have our psychological facilities now because of years and years of picking off the weaknesses, why do we still have psychological disorders? Why do we see some common things as psychologically problematic? (And what does it mean to be psychologically problematic, anyway?)