Barresi & Moore's “intentional schema” will not do the work of “theory of mind.” Their model will account neither for fundamental facts of social competence, such as the social attributions of the 10-month-old infant, nor the possibility that, though having a theory of mind, the chimpanzee's theory is “weaker” than the human's.

Erdelyi's account of thought suppression, which he equates with the Freudian construct of repression, is that it is mostly successful, and that it undermines memory for the suppressed material. Erdelyi has neglected to consider evidence from two decades of research on suppression which renders both these claims invalid. Contrary to Erdelyi's thesis, suppression often enhances the accessibility of unwanted material.

Keller & Miller's (K&M's) treatment of disorders usefully avoids diagnostic minutiae; but it needs more real-world constraints. Classifying processes by their evolutionary age helps to clarify both evolution and current function. Evolutionarily old, optimised, normative processes deserve special recognition, because they can be studied in animals and computers, and because they provide the machinery through which disorder-related polymorphisms act.

The history of comparative psychology is replete with proclamations of human uniqueness. Locke and Morgan denied animals relational thought; Darwin opened the door to that possibility. Penn et al. may be too quick to dismiss the cognitive competences of animals. The developmental precursors to relational thought in humans are not yet known; providing animals those prerequisite experiences may promote more advanced relational thought.

The fearful ape hypothesis (FAH) presents an evolutionary-developmental framework stipulating that in the context of cooperative caregiving, unique to human great ape group life, heightened fearfulness was adaptive. This is because from early in human ontogeny fearfulness expressed and perceived enhanced care-based responding and cooperation with mothers and others. This response extends and refines the FAH by incorporating the commentaries' suggestions and additional lines of empirical work, providing a more comprehensive and nuanced version of the FAH. Specifically, it encourages and hopes to inspire cross-species and cross-cultural, longitudinal work elucidating evolutionary and developmental functions of fear in context. Beyond fear, it can be seen as a call for an evolutionary-developmental approach to affective science.

Arguments about the nature of teaching have depended principally on naturalistic observation and some experimental work. Additional measurement tools, and physiological variations and manipulations can provide insights on the intrinsic structure and state of the participants better than verbal descriptions alone: namely, time-series analysis, and examination of the role of hormones and neuromodulators on the behaviors of teacher and pupil.

If connectionist computational models explain the acquisition of complex cognitive skills, errors in such models would also help explain unusual brain activity such as in creativity – as well as in mental illness, including childhood onset problems with social behaviors in autism, the inability to maintain focus in attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and the lack of motivation of depression disorders.

Finlay et al. address the importance of developmental constraints in brain size evolution. I discuss some aspects of this view such as the relation of brain size with processing capacity. In particular, I argue that in human evolution there must have been specific selection for increased processing capacity, and as a consequence for increased brain size.

Though Kurzban et al.'s model explains a considerable set of empirical findings, it cannot accommodate other results without relying on extra assumptions. We offer an addition to the model, and suggest that cost-benefit analyses themselves depend on executive function, and therefore can be biased. The adapted model allows for explaining depletion effects, as well as their reversals, documented in the literature.

Clarke and Beck use behavioural evidence to argue that (1) approximate ratio computations are sufficient for claiming that the approximate number system (ANS) represents the rationals, and (2) the ANS does not represent the reals. We argue that pure behaviour is a poor litmus test for this problem, and that we should trust the psychophysical models that place ANS representations within the reals.

The evidence Atran uses to support innate biological principles could just as well support learning, just as in another realm often cited as a candidate for innate knowledge, “naive psychology.”

Morsella et al. put forward an interesting theory about the functions of consciousness. However, I argue that this theory is more about showing what is not the function of consciousness, and claiming that it does not integrate, than vice versa – as opposed to its proclaimed goal. In addition, the question of phenomenality and its relations with integration is still left open.