We have had a grand tour of operant behaviorism ranging over evolutionary time and the breadth of human cultures. It has included both verbal and nonverbal behavior, and it has visited both their public and their private domains. To test my understanding of some of the issues discussed and to offer what I hope will be constructive contributions to the treatments, I here address to Professor Skinner several questions and comments on some of the topics stopped at along the way (I will treat his responses as my souvenirs of the trip).

Wynn's claims are, in principle, entirely reasonable; although, as always, the devil is in the details. With respect to Wynn's discussion of the cultural evolution of artifactual symmetry, we provide a few more arguments for the utility of mirror symmetry and extend the enquiry into the tacit and explicit processing of natural and artifactual symmetry.

Millikan's discussion of substance concepts in terms of their information-gathering role ignores the analyses of information-based perception and action developed within the tradition of ecological psychology. Her introduction and use without definition of key Gibsonian terms such as “affordance” and “direct perception” leaves those of us investigating such concepts uncertain of the extent to which she appreciates their theoretical importance. Due recognition of the realist account of categorical perception developed by J. J. Gibson would provide mutual benefit to modern externalist philosophy as well as to experimental psychology and to those investigating the ecological approach to perception–action.

Posner & Raichle (1994) is a nice addition to the Scientific American Library and the average reader will both enjoy the book and learn a great deal. As an activeresearcher, however, I find the book disappointing in many respects. My two major disappointments are in the illusion of computation that is created throughout the volume and in the inadequate perspective of the presentation on visual attention.

In response to Ainslie & Gault: The value of a temporally extended behavioral pattern depends on relationships inherent in the pattern itself. It is not possible to express that value as the simple sum of the discounted present values of the pattern's component acts.

In response to Leiber: Teleological behaviorism may be deemed unscientific because it has not yet succeeded to the required degree in predicting and controlling the highly complex patterns of human behavior that comprise our mental lives. However teleological behaviorism is not unscientific because it is teleological or “noncausal;” nor is teleological behaviorism unscientific because it is not reducible to neurophysiology. Nothing in principle bars the development of a teleological science of the mind.

Mating motivation likely plays a role in bias to attractive individuals, but there are other complementary theories drawn from the evolutionary literature related to competition, friendship, and leadership selection that also make relevant predictions concerning biases towards attractive individuals. The relative balance of these factors will be context dependent and so help explain why the pattern of bias is sometimes variable.

Industrial melanism, according to the traditional explanation, amounts to niche construction since it involves changes in predation pressure. Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine selection without niche construction. This cannot be what Laland, Odling-Smee & Feldman mean. They offer convincing examples, but they should provide a better definition of “niche construction” to indicate how their view supplements traditional evolutionary biology.

The exceptional importance of the Ceci et al. study for the debate over tenure is noted, particularly the perceived importance of academic rank relative to tenure status. Beyond the significance of academic freedom lie important issues of the costs and benefits of tenure that now need to be addressed in equally rigorous research involving extensive, detailed consideration of actual cases.

While Bentley et al.’s model is very appealing, in this commentary we argue that researchers interested in big data and collective behavior, including the way humans make decisions, must account for the emotional factor. We investigate how daily choice of activities is influenced by emotions. Results indicate that mood significantly predicts people's decisions about what to do next, stressing the importance of emotional state on decision-making.

In this commentary I discuss the importance of considering the isomorphism between the full richness of dreams and the great body of information about REM sleep that is amply documented in the five target articles. With this inclusive mode I point out the importance of looking at REM sleep as involving both pontine and cortical activity in an integrated network. We cannot have a full appreciation of sleep and dreaming (view of the forest) without taking both physiology and mental activity seriously.

[Hobson et al., Nielsen, Revonsuo, Solms, Vertes & Eastman]

A critique of inferences from “is” to “ought” plays a central role in Elqayam & Evans' (E&E's) defense of descriptivism. However, the reflective equilibrium strategy described by Goodman and embraced by Rawls, Cohen, and many others poses an important challenge to that critique. Dual-system theories may help respond to that challenge.

In this commentary, I agree with Chow's treatment of null hypothesis significance testing as a noninferential procedure. However, I dispute his reconstruction of the logic of theory corroboration. I also challenge recent criticisms of NHSTP based on power analysis and meta-analysis.