Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no". 
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Input: I'm studying a general broad psychology degree right now (so classes in a bit of everything) and the feeling I've always gotten when we've discussed evolutionary psychology is that it currently gets a bit of a side-eye from the different psychological fields for much the same reason Freudian style psychoanalysis does. They're both pretty unverifiable. They are how they are because they are.     For example, an evolutionary psychological explanation for getting (sometimes) different outcomes between sexes in spatial/language tests runs along the lines of maybe that's because historically, men needed better spatial skills because they roamed further to hunt while women needed better language skills to mediate conflicts that, as the generally smaller sex, could be fatal for them if they escalate. It's a nice simple theory that makes superficial sense but it can never move past theory because there's simply no way to gather evidence to support it. It's also somewhat reductionist, which is always a warning sign with psychology that something is hinky. If a theory or the outcome of a study doesn't come with at least a dozen caveats, it definitely doesn't encapsulate more than a tiny segment of humanity.

no