One of the most remarkable manifestations of social cohesion in large-scale entities is the belief in a shared, distinct, and ancestral past. Human communities around the world take pride in their ancestral roots, commemorate their long history of shared experiences, and celebrate the distinctiveness of their historical trajectory. Why do humans put so much effort into celebrating a long-gone past? Integrating insights from evolutionary psychology, social psychology, evolutionary anthropology, political science, cultural history, and political economy, we show that the cultural success of historical myths is driven by a specific adaptive challenge for humans: The need to recruit coalitional support to engage in large-scale collective action and prevail in conflicts. By showcasing a long history of cooperation and shared experiences, these myths serve as super-stimuli, activating specific features of social cognition and drawing attention to cues of fitness interdependence. In this account, historical myths can spread within a population without requiring group-level selection, as long as individuals have a vested interest in their propagation and strong psychological motivations to create them. Finally, this framework explains not only the design features of historical myths, but also important patterns in their cross-cultural prevalence, interindividual distribution, and particular content.

In line with Dixon et al.'s argument, I contend that prejudice should be understood in broadly political rather than in narrowly psychological terms. First, what counts as prejudice is a political judgement. Second, studies of collective action demonstrate that it is in “political” struggles, where subordinate groups together oppose dominant groups, that prejudice can be overcome.

Evolutionary psychologists are personally liberal, just as social psychologists are. Yet their research has rarely been perceived as liberally biased – if anything, it has been erroneously perceived as motivated by conservative political agendas. Taking a closer look at evolutionary psychologists might offer the broader social psychology community guidance in neutralizing some of the biases Duarte et al. discuss.

The perceptual symbol approach to knowledge representation combines structured frames and dynamic imagery. The perceptual symbol approach provides a good account of the representation of scientific models, of some types of naive theories held by children and adults, and of certain reconstructive memory phenomena. The ontological status of perceptual symbols is unclear and this form of representation does not succeed in accounting for all forms of human knowledge.

Experiments on choice blindness support von Hippel & Trivers's (VH&T's) conception of the mind as fundamentally divided, but they also highlight a problem for VH&T's idea of non-conscious self-deception: If I try to trick you into believing that I have a certain preference, and the best way is to also trick myself, I might actually end up having that preference, at all levels of processing.

Altruism by definition involves the self's evaluation of costs and benefits of an act of the self, which must include cost to the self and benefits to the other. Reinforcement value to the self of such acts is greater than the costs to the self. Without consideration of a self-system of evaluation, there is little meaning to altruistic acts.

Human responses to probabilities can be studied through gambling and through experiments presenting biased sequences of stimuli. In both cases, participants are sensitive to base rates. They adjust automatically to changes in base rate; such adjustment is incompatible with conformity to Bayes' Theorem. ”Base-rate neglect” is therefore specific to the exercises in mental arithmetic reviewed in the target article.

The target article by Charney convincingly argues that genomic plasticity perinatally induced by the environment creates a complication in determining which parts of behavior are attributed to nature and which to nurture. I argue that real life is even more complex because (1) genotype influences sensitivity to environmental stimuli, and (2) the genome continues to be modified throughout life.

In describing numerosity as “a kind of ersatz number,” Clarke and Beck fail to consider a familiar and compelling definition of numerosity, which conceptualizes numerosity as the cognitive counterpart of the mathematical concept of cardinality; numerosity is the magnitude, whereas number is a scale through which numerosity/cardinality is measured. We argue that these distinctions should be considered.

Borsboom et al. correctly note that the use of latent variable models in cross-cultural research has resulted in a futile search for universal, biological causes of psychopathology; however, this is not an inevitable outcome of such models. While network analytic approaches require further development, network models have the potential to better elucidate the role of cultural and contextual variables related to psychopathology.

A fundamental assumption in Shors & Matzel's target article is that brain activity can be related to the traditional categories of mentalistic psychology. This has led them to make numerous further assumptions that are contradicted by the available evidence.

Various issues concerning the neural blackboard architectures for combinatorial structures are discussed and clarified. They range from issues related to neural dynamics, the structure of the architectures for language and vision, and alternative architectures, to linguistic issues concerning the language architecture. Particular attention is given to the nature of true combinatorial structures and the way in which information can be retrieved from them in a productive and systematic manner.