For Herbert Gintis, the “rational actor,” or “beliefs, preferences, and constraints (BPC),” model is central to his unifying framework for the behavioral sciences. It is not argued here that this model is refuted by evidence. Instead, this model relies ubiquitously on auxiliary assumptions, and is evacuated of much meaning when applied to both human and nonhuman organisms. An alternative perspective of “program-based behavior” is more consistent with evolutionary principles.

An effect of the long-term cycle of industrial and post-industrial global development is the increasingly generalized access to abundant and diversified food sources. This poses a substantial problem of self-regulation that mainly affects the less affluent and whose failures may play an important role in the explanation of the increasing social incidence of overweight and obesity problems.

The target article challenges standard approaches to prejudice reduction, warning that they may inure people to inequality and deflect them from seeking collective solutions to it. I argue that the collective action approach has its own risks and limitations and that standard contact and common identity approaches may complement rather than work against it.

We applaud Millikan's psychologically plausible version of the causal theory of reference. Her proposal offers a significant clarification of the much-debated relation between concepts and beliefs, and suggests positive directions for future empirical studies of conceptual development. However, Millikan's revision of the causal theory may leave us with no generally satisfying account of concept individuation in the mind.

The phylogenetic data are inconsistent with the hypothesis that REM sleep duration is correlated with learning or learning ability. Humans do not have uniquely high amounts of REM sleep. The platypus, marsupials, and other mammals not generally thought to have extraordinary learning abilities have the largest amounts of REM sleep. The whales and dolphins (cetaceans) have the lowest amounts of REM sleep and may go without REM sleep for extended periods of time, despite their prodigious learning abilities.

Vertes & Eastman]

Points of criticism of the target include: the extreme violence of females in defence of young despite high potential cost, the reality of female dominance striving, differences in male and female ritualization of aggression, the real existence of institutionalized female instrumental aggression, and the uselessness of “patriarchy” as defined as a category for differential analysis. It is concluded that it may in fact be the decline of patriarchy in the strict sense that leads to the female use of exculpatory explanations for aggression, thus reversing Campbell's proposed causal sequence.

Our concern is with Ramsey et al.'s method for identifying innovation. We show that either it yields false positives or the authors offer insufficient guidance for its application. To avoid these results, the authors need to modify the key or offer better guidelines for delineating input. Either choice requires addressing the processes that generate a behavior.

Merker argues that subcortical regions are sufficient for the constitution of consciousness as “immediate, unreflective experience” as distinguished from self-consciousness. My point here is that Merker neglects the differentiation between pre-reflective self-awareness and reflective self-consciousness. Pre-reflective self-awareness allows us to immediately and unreflectively experience our self, which functionally may be mediated by what I call self-related processing in subcortical regions.

Van Gelder's hard line against representations is not supported or supportable, and his soft line in favor of dynamical systems thinking as a supplement to representational models of cognition is good advice, but not revolutionary, as he seems to think.

We argue that the roles of attacker and defender in asymmetric intergroup conflict are structurally ambiguous and their perception is likely to be subjectively biased. Although this allows for endogenous selection into each role, we argue that claiming the role of the defender likely is more advantageous for conflict participants.

Atran & Norenzayan (A&N) ask: “Why do agent concepts predominate in religion?” This question presupposes that we have a notion of religion that is (1) well enough defined, and (2) characterized independently of that of supernatural agents. I question these two presuppositions. I argue that “religion” is a family resemblance notion built around the idea of supernatural agency.

Characterizing the cultural evolution of imaginary worlds as a hedonic but non-adaptive exaptation from evolved exploratory tendencies, Dubourg and Baumard defend too narrow a conception of the adaptive evolution of imaginary worlds. Imagination and its imaginary worlds are ancient and adaptive, allowing deliberation over actions, consequences, and futures worth aspiring to, often engendering the world we see around us.

Money does not stimulate receptors in mimicry of natural agonists; so, by definition, money is not a drug. Attractions of money other than to purchase goods and services could arise from instincts similar to hoarding in other species. Instinctual activities without evolutionary function include earning a billion and writing for BBS.

The claim that human newborns imitate is widely accepted and influential. Yet reliable evidence that newborns match modeled behaviors is limited, and there is no empirically based explanation of how the knowledge that imitation requires could develop before birth. In their target article, Keven & Akins (K&A) contribute important new evidence to an alternative account of newborns' matching that challenges the newborn imitation claim.

Van Gelder's specification of the dynamical hypothesis does not improve on previous notions. All three key attributes of dynamical systems apply to Turing machines and are hence too general. However, when a more restricted definition of a dynamical system is adopted, it becomes clear that the dynamical hypothesis is too underspecified to constitute an interesting cognitive claim.

We argue that how players perceive the attack-defense game might matter far more than its actual underlying structure in determining the outcomes of intergroup conflict. Leaders can use various tactics to dynamically modify these perceptions, from collective victimization to the distortion of the perceived payoffs, with some followers being more receptive than others to such leadership tactics.

To assess Brette's proposal to expunge “coding” from the neuroscientist's lexicon, we must consider its origins. The coding metaphor is due largely to British nerve physiologist Edgar Adrian. I suggest two ways that the coding metaphor fueled his research. I conclude that the debate today should not be about the “truth” of the metaphor but about its continuing utility.

This commentary questions the claim that Take-The-Best provides a cognitively more plausible account of cue utilisation in decision making because it is faster and more frugal than alternative algorithms. It is also argued that the experimental evidence for Take-The-Best, or non-integrative algorithms, is weak and appears consistent with people normally adopting an integrative approach to cue utilisation.