Throughout the evolution related posts you use arbitrary examples to show that any given species wide feature gave us a fitness advantage at some point. What about mutations that occurred in small populations and due to inbreeding or population bottlenecks fixated to what would become the dominant breeding population of the future? 

What if a random mutation in an already somewhat breeding dominant male was spread to a population of 20, then some catastrophe affects all but these 20 creatures (chance fixation of arbitrary trait). 

I guess my point is, I can think of at least 3 other ways you could get chance fixation of arbitrary allelles, and even more where you get majority carriership which can remain stable within a population without a fitness advantage being conferred by them. 

This isn't a point against your description of the mechanism of evolution but a point against picking a trait like anger and assuming it exists because it conferred a fitness advantage, although it may well. 

I hated this post because it called me out on a fundamental level. I suppose i worship a degree of mystery, despite being determinist, I think that the world is far to large in its totality for any given human or singular communicating group of humans to fully comprehend ( and always will be due to the constraints of our biology and collective behaviour). As such, the humbling blows that consistently come out of ones blind spot, to me are beautiful and worthy of awe. Despite my best efforts and my objective progress in those efforts, I will always be humbled periodically and marvel at the complexity of the world we inhabit. In this moment, and perhaps in error, I view it as a large entity, interconnected and interdependent through the opacity of cause and effect on a grand scale. In this way i see myself both as a discreet separate entity to the ' rest of the world' but also as a participant, and I believe this feeling is beneficial to my life and to others who share this awe, yet it risks falling into this category of mysterious answers to mysterious questions. It too must be scrutinised. I must say, though, it can be such a lovely thought that it is hard to not just allow it to overcome.

unconstrained by the semantic stop sign, where would one stop in unguided inquiry? It feels like its just system 1 kicking in to stop the spiralling usage of system 2, or perhaps just system 1 finding a reason to cut its own sloppy output. I suppose you could just say 'i don't know', but within a social context where some inquiry does occur spontaneously there are incentives that guide the usage of semantic stop signs, in many cases to the short term benefit of the participants. In casual discussion I try to constrain the discussion to rational principles but enforcing this can be a social net negative for me or anyone in a similar position.