We show that, under some circumstances, identification and differentiation in the form of competition and individual rewards may undermine, rather than improve, group performance. The key factor for successful group performance seems to be whether or not group members share common goals and whether or not they have aligned incentives.

The brain is involved in theory-laden cognitive processes. But there are two different theory-laden processes. In cases where the theory is based on facts, more facts can either falsify or confirm a theory. In cases where the theory is about the choice of a benchmark or a standard, more facts can only make a theory either more or less warranted.

Mazur & Booth (1998) (M&B) suggested that high testosterone (T) relates to status, dominance, and (anti-) social behaviour. However, low T also relates to status and to formal dominance. The General Trait Covariance (GTC) model predicts both relations under the assumption that high and low T modulates the genotype in ways that enforce the development of almost polar covariant patterns of body, brain, intellectual, and personality traits, irrespective of race. The precise modelling of these dose-dependent molecular body-intelligence-personality-behaviour relations requires that causes, mechanisms, and effects enjoy equal operational standing.

Human beings, like chimpanzees, deliberately kill their own species in order to expand their territory. For a self-aware social animal to attack its own kind, it would need to evolve a mechanism to dehumanize, or dechimpanzee-ize those it attacks. It is suggested that cruelty reflects such an evolved predisposition. The implications for violence prevention are discussed.

Studies have shown that as MRI T2 relaxation time lengthens there is a shift toward more unbound or “free-water” and less partitioning of the protein/lipid molecules per unit volume. A shift toward less water partitioning or lengthened MRI T2 relaxation time is linearly related to reduced high frequency EEG amplitude, reduced short distance EEG coherence, increased long distance EEG coherence, and reduced cognitive functioning (Thatcher et al. 1998a; 1998b).

Is musicality an individual level adaptation? The authors of this target article reject the need for group selection within their model, yet their arguments do not fulfill the conceptual requirements for justifying such a rejection. Further analysis can highlight the explanatory value of embracing multilevel selection theory as a foundational element of the music and social bonding (MSB) hypothesis.

I argue that demographic selection, migration, and cultural diffusion, three mechanisms of institutional change, have little in common. Two of these lack the key features associated with group selection: they do not present us with group-level selection pressures counteracting individual-level ones, need not produce behavioral altruism, and do not require competition between groups whose members cooperate preferentially with one another. Cultural norms vary, change, and influence cooperation; but that is not group selection.

Carpendale & Lewis (C&L) view enculturation as the internalization of cultural concepts given in social interactions. They claim that enculturation implies relativism and fails to take into account both the constructive activity of the child and the gradual nature of development. Their view is contrasted with the notion of the child as both enculturated and enculturing throughout the course of development.

The evolutionary origins of complex capacities such as musicality are not simple, and likely involved many interacting steps of musicality-specific adaptations, exaptations, and cultural creation. A full account of the origins of musicality needs to consider the role of ancient adaptations such as credible singing, auditory scene analysis, and prediction-reward circuits in constraining the emergence of musicality.

A growing trend, reflected in the target article, effectively shifts control of prejudice operationalization to align with right-leaning priorities (and away from disadvantaged groups' voices and social justice). The article would only be compelling if experiments misaligned with real-world findings, if experimenters ignored nuances and moderators, and if the call to consider the social context included the macro-level societal context.

I take up the challenge of why false beliefs are better than “cautious action policies” (target article, sect. 9) in navigating adaptive problems with asymmetric errors. I then suggest that there are interactions between supernatural beliefs, self-deception, and positive illusions, rendering elements of all such misbeliefs adaptive. Finally, I argue that supernatural beliefs cannot be rejected as adaptive simply because recent experiments are inconclusive. The great costs of religion betray its even greater adaptive benefits – we just have not yet nailed down exactly what they are.