This is a problem that I see in a number of fields. Sometimes an entire approach can become ideological, often without setting out to be.
You find that a certain approach, a certain way of interpreting facts proves itself to be very useful- conclusions are reached, and it seems to have a great deal of explanatory power.
Then it gets over-extended. People use that approach on data it doesn’t fit, skate over inconsistencies in the results or plain ignore counter-examples because they’re so attached to the main “Theory of everything”. In extreme cases this can be because when viewed through the prism of a flawed enough theory, everything fits by definition.
Outsiders who have not been convinced of the premises of the main theory, or point out flaws in certain conclusions can be dismissed because they haven’t read all the papers by all the insiders. I’ve even seen the fact that outsiders are disagreeing with some conclusions of a theory being used as evidence of the theory’s correctness.
In the end, people are human, and are prone to falling afoul of cognitive biases, especially when it relates to something they feel heavily invested in. Which is why the scientific method is so useful. Always try to falsify your own theories, try to be brutal with your own conclusions, because the alternative is getting lead down a dead end…
Evo-psych is a notable offender, but this phenomenon is by no means limited to there.
