Shortcomings in the target article preclude adequate tests of developmental/attachment and strategic pluralism theories. Methodological problems include comparing college student attitudes with societal level indicators that may not reflect life conditions of college students. We show, through two principal components analyses, that multiple tests of the theories reduce to only two findings that cannot be interpreted as solid support for evolutionary hypotheses.

The sensorimotor account of perception is akin to Gibsonian direct realism. Both emphasize external properties of the world, challenging views based on the analysis of internal visual processing. To compare the role of distal and retinotopic parameters, distractor effect – an optomotor reaction of midbrain origin – is considered. Even in this case, permanence in the environment, not on the retina, explains the dynamics of habituation.

Even though there is ample evidence from the sentence- comprehension literature for specialized working memory systems in normal and patient populations, some open questions remain. One of them is an explanation for a missing “post-interpretive” processing deficit in a variety of accuracy-judgment tasks in an aphasic patient with a severe verbal working memory problem.

This commentary seeks to place Farah's (1994) arguments in the historical context of ideas about mind-brain relationships. It further seeks to draw a conceptual parallel between the issues considered by Farah in her target article and questions which have concerned neuroscientists since the nineteenth century regarding the functional organization of the brain. Specific reference is made to the relationship between use of the concept of “locality” in cognitive neuropsychology and use of the concept of “localization” in neuroscience.

Jesse Bering's theory of the “folk psychology of souls” is brilliantly elucidated and warrants further empirical investigation. While additional experimental research is certainly required, we also need to interrogate the evidence on reasoning about dead agents in a wide range of real-world settings.

We argue that lateralities are not merely a result of phylogenetic processes but reflect probability functions that are influenced by task characteristics and extended practice. We support our argument by empirical findings on lateral biases in early infancy in general, and footedness in particular, and on hand preferences in nonhuman primates.

Palmer's suggestion that color might serve as an appropriate field in which to test the hypotheses on the relations among brain, mind, and behavior is misleading. Human color experience as related to mind must be considered as a cultural, as well as a natural phenomenon. It is important to avoid approaching facts of language as mere nomenclature; otherwise, concepts are reduced to percepts.

Two visual phenomena are described in which oculomotor activity (saccades) changes our conscious perception: (1) some geometrical visual illusions disappear when saccades are suppressed, and (2) misperceptions occur in an antisaccade task with attentional precues. The first phenomenon shows that what we consciously perceive depends on how we look. The second phenomena indicates that a saccade itself may remain unconscious together with the accompanying changes of the retinal image.

The brain and emotion treats emotions as states elicited by reinforcers (reward or punishment), but it is unclear how this view can do justice to the diversity of emotions. It is also unclear how such a view distinguishes emotions from states such as hunger and thirst. A complementary approach to understanding emotions may begin by considering emotions as aspects of social cognition.

Complementary to Gowdy & Krall's comparison between ants and humans, I use economy scaling laws to discuss the similarity and difference between them quantitatively. I hypothesize that individual variations in society result in higher energetic efficiency in larger groups, and that the difference in the sustainability between these species originates from the driving forces of growth with different scaling powers.

We argue that solving the heterogeneous problems arising from the standard game theory requires looking both at reasoning heuristics, as in Colman's analysis, and at how people represent games and the quantities that define them.