-The tone of the comment is very matter-of-fact and peremptory, as if that explanation was obviously the only one and not just one among the dozens that have been put forward by the community so far, all having more solid support.

-The lack of proper sourcing. A plos one and an evopsych pop sci book do not count as proper sourcing.

-The expression "brains are wired". At least they didn't say "hardcoded", but still. It's as lousy as people calling DNA source code.

-The quasi-Freudian mindset some people demonstrate by seeking to placate sexual selection onto everything that arises through evolution.

-The very loose attempt to apply this argument to present-day cultural phenomena. I find it too easy.

-Basically anything involving evopsychy explanations for anything is very likely to be sigh-worthy.

Before some of you come out of the woodwork (yes, you) and jump at the argument with more plos one citations and retorts from whoever is the flavorful evopsych specialist of the month: yes, I am aware sexual selection is a thing, I partly work on it. Yes, I know evopsych shouldn't be dismissed off-hand. No, I am still not willing to have the discussion you're about to engage me with. To be honest I don't know many scientists who are, it just feels fruitless for us.

I think you misread the parent comment, as well as mine. Consider this:

"Human brain is like a peacock tail: it's a product of the sexual selection. It's too huge of an organ."

That doesn't reference evolutionary psychology, but rather, that describes Fisherian Runaway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway

Fisher pre-dates evolutionary psychology/behavioralism by several decades. Fisher put his theory forward back in the 1930s.

I agree with you that most of the modern evpysch stuff is poorly thought out.