The soft sciences are rich with deep unifying explanations, whereas not so much for the hard sciences

People mistakenly believe the hard sciences like physics are more amenable to elegant grand unifying theories than the wispy soft sciences like psychology or biology.

The flaw in that is that physics hasn’t undergone selection forces to DO anything, whereas the biology and psychology has, and its design can often be elegantly explained.

Here are two examples.

The first is the standard model of elementary particle physics, which has an unsatisfying number of parameters.

The second is @DrTimBarber and my grand unifying theory of emotional expressions, which explains from first principles the function and design of “wispy” emotional expressions with the least possible number of parameters.