Liberalism is not so much a political philosophy; it’s the discipline of the scientific method, of rejecting logical fallacies in argument, admitting the limited reach of your paradigms, and keeping yourself open to new information. Humans are not naturally liberal, and not all who claim to be liberals demonstrate liberal behavior nor those who identify as conservative fail to do so.
I’ve struggled with limited success to champion evolutionary psychology. I think it’s unfairly maligned and believe it will stand the test of time. Every heated argument I’ve gotten into about it has been with people who resort to the Appeal to Authority fallacy and Appeal to Nature (loosely, “Naturalistic”) fallacy. Evolutionary psychology is difficult to defend against cultural-relativist arguments and still do full justice to those arguments, which can be highly academic. I’ve found a guy who does this brilliantly, a New Zealander named Daniel Copeland, who identifies as feminist [correction: feminist-aligned]. His analysis is scholarly, brilliant, even-handed, and, above all, humane. No one I’ve read, not even Pinker or Wright, has launched a more powerful exposition and defense of the discipline.
Please give him a fair, careful reading. It takes time, but it’s worth it.