Is this market equivalent to: "will it be taught that psychology evolved just like physical features?"?

@NivlacM I am not sure what that entails entirely so I can't say.

Part of the main criteria is that it's not just post-hoc speculation, but evolutionary hypotheses are discussed, and evolved adaptations are accepted.

But they don't have to be 'organs of the mind', high church, fully on board with massive modularity EP. Teaching that "we evolved cheater detection mechanisms" would count, but so would a more vague "we evolved to detect cheaters."

As a non-psychology student, isn't this already the case? I thought evo-psych was meant to be the main modern cutting edge of the field, like the equivalent of quantum mechanics in physics or genetics in biology

@TheAllMemeingEye Unfortunately not. There is some lip service paid to evo-psych, followed by some handwaving dismissal or nonsense critique ("it's just-so stories").

For clarifications, most people will say humans have evolved, and admit that evolution has not stopped at the neck, but these are not put into practice in teaching & research.