Müller's goal of bringing neuroscience to bear on controversies in linguistics is laudable. However, some of his specific proposals about innateness and autonomy are misguided. Recent studies on the neurobiology of regular and irregular inflectional morphology indicate that these two linguistic processes are subserved by anatomically and physiologically distinct neural subsystems, whose functional organization is likely to be under direct genetic control rather than assembled by strictly epigenetic factors.

We find the theory of neural reuse to be highly plausible, and suggest that human individual differences provide an additional line of argument in its favor, focusing on the well-replicated finding of “positive manifold,” in which individual differences are highly correlated across domains. We also suggest that the theory of neural reuse may be an important contributor to the phenomenon of positive manifold itself.

Although Steeles & Belpaeme’s (S&B) results may be useful for development of technical devices, their significance for behavioral sciences is very limited. This is because the question the authors asked was “Why do people use similar words in a similar way?” rather than “How can similar words stand for similar experience?” The main problem is not shared word usage, but shared references.

Twisting definitions of a concept to serve one's purposes is rarely a fruitful exercise and the demonstration of culture is, necessarily, a two-step procedure: (1) documenting a behavioral difference between populations, (2) demonstrating that this difference has spread through the group by means of social learning. This will avoid putting the cart before the horse.

In general, we endorse Aggleton & Brown's thesis that the neuroanatomy of amnesia comprises two functionally distinct systems, but we are disappointed in the lack of detail regarding the critical functional contribution of the hippocampus. We also take issue with the characterization of the cortical areas surrounding the hippocampus, particularly the decreased emphasis on the cortical input to the hippocampus.

The time scale of the effects of emotional arousal on neutral information processing is crucial for the predictions of the glutamate amplifies noradrenergic effects (GANE) model. GANE suggests that when emotional and neutral stimuli are presented in a sequence, neutral information processing will change. We review the literature on event-related potentials, including our own data set, to test this prediction.

Some individuals have a neurogenetic vulnerability to developing strong facilitation of ingestive movements by learned configurations of biosocial stimuli. Condemning food as addictive is mere polemic, ignoring the contextualised sensory control of the mastication of each mouthful. To beat obesity, the least fattening of widely recognised eating patterns needs to be measured and supported.

Aggleton & Brown argue that the function of the hippocampus and perirhinal cortex can be dissociated along a spatial/nonspatial dimension. They further suggest that this division corresponds to a distinction between episodic and recognition memory. An analysis of the data, however, fails to support the underlying dissociation.

I have three types of interrelated comments. First, on the choice of the proposed criteria, I argue against any list and for a system of criteria. Second, on grading, I suggest modifications with respect to consciousness and development. Finally, on the choice of “theories” for evaluation, I argue for Edelman's theory of neuronal group selection instead of connectionism (classical or not).

Both internal and external states can cause inconsistencies in decision behavior. I present examples from behavioral decision-making literature and review neuroscientific knowledge on two contextual influences: framing effects and social conformity. The brain mechanisms underlying these behavioral adjustments comply with the dual-process account and simple learning mechanisms, and are weak indicators for unintentionality in decision-making processes.

There are other options than the opposition set by Mele between his own account and the strict interpersonal model. The notion of collective self-deception or “social hypocrisy” is discussed and shown to be nonparadoxical. When an individual consciousness lies to itself, there is often a form of “negative collaboration” with another.

We are not convinced by Gangestad & Simpson that differential mating strategies within each sex would be greater than such strategies between sexes. The target article does not provide actual evidence of human males who do not desire mating with multiple females, or evidence that the benefits for females of short-term matings with multiple males have ever outweighed the associated costs.

Shepard's article presents an impressive application of the mathematics of symmetry to the understanding of motion. However, there are basic psychological phenomena that the model does not handle well. These include the importance of the orientations of rotational motions to salient reference systems for the understanding of the motions. An alternative model of the understanding of rotations is sketched. [Shepard]