Humans do not explicitly pursue inclusive genetic fitness, although natural selection optimized on that simple loss function.

True: mainstream evolutionary biology and psychology hold that humans are not explicit inclusive-fitness maximisers: their motives (pleasure, status, sex with contraception, and so on) are not directed at maximising inclusive genetic fitness, even though natural selection selected on reproductive success. The 'adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximisers' view (Tooby & Cosmides; Symons) and examples such as low fertility in wealthy societies and contraception use support this. Mostly true: this broadly holds, with minor caveats (e.g. some people value having descendants, or 'very simple loss function' is a loose description of selection). Mixed: the literature is genuinely split on whether humans in effect pursue fitness. Mostly false: a significant body of evidence shows humans do largely pursue fitness-related goals in a way that undermines the claim, though not explicitly. False: evidence shows humans explicitly and generally pursue inclusive genetic fitness.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 Applying Evolutionary Anthropology PMC (peer-reviewed evolutionary anthropology article; journal not named on the page) · 14 February 2015

   “Evolutionary perspectives on behavior do not anticipate that individuals consciously or unconsciously strategize about the fitness pay-offs of alternative behavior. Instead, natural selection is understood as shaping behavioral motivations toward proximate goals, such as social status, avoiding danger, and obtaining sexual partners, that correlate with fitness.”

2. E2 The Fallacy of Fitness Maximization UCLA Communication Studies (Francis F. Steen), an informal talk overhead page · 1998

   “Cosmides and Tooby: Humans are adaptation executors rather than fitness maximizers (the central tenet of evolutionary psychology)”

3. E3 Understanding variation in human fertility: what can we learn from evolutionary demography? PMC (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B theme issue introduction, by evolutionary demographers) · 19 April 2016

   “First wave research also suggested that fertility decline probably cannot be interpreted as adaptive, though it may be influenced by psychological and cultural mechanisms which were adaptive in previous environments.”

E1, a peer-reviewed review in evolutionary anthropology, says evolutionary accounts do not expect people to consciously or unconsciously work out fitness payoffs. Instead, selection shapes motives toward proximate goals such as status and sexual partners. E2 records the Cosmides and Tooby view that humans are "adaptation executors rather than fitness maximizers", and E3 reports that research suggested the fall in fertility probably cannot be read as adaptive. Together these support the core claim that humans do not explicitly pursue inclusive genetic fitness. The criteria list calling natural selection a "very simple loss function" as a loose description that counts as a minor caveat, so the verdict is mostly true.