It is tough to relate visual perception or other achievements to physiological processing in the central nervous system. The diagrammatic, algebraic, and verbal pictures of how sights seem to Lehar do not advance understanding of how we manage to see what is in the world. There are well-known conceptual reasons why no such purely introspective approach can be productive.

The existence of specific polymorphisms in genes of key hormones of the energy homeostasis network that have been shown to predispose to obesity and the so-called metabolic syndrome provides further biological support for the proposed insurance hypothesis. In a broader sense, such polymorphisms can be understood as biological imprints of an evolutionarily successful minimax strategy employed by ancient Homo sapiens subpopulations in a one-player game against nature.

Gangestad & Simpson present an evolutionary functional analysis of mating strategies. This commentary interprets their argument using a central concept from life history theory, return from investment. Incorporating return from investment allows further specification of costs and benefits from short-term mating in women as well as men and in ecological settings of high environmental variation in mortality and resource availability.

“Decortication” does not distinguish between removing all cerebral cortex, including three-layered allocortex or just six-layered neocortex. Functional decortication, by spreading depression, reversibly suppresses only neocortex, leaving minimal intentionality. Removal of all forebrain structures except a hypothalamic “island” blocks all intentional behaviors, leaving only tropisms. To what extent do Merker's examples retain allocortex, and how might such residues affect his interpretations?

We agree with many of the principles proposed by Frost but highlight crucial caveats and report research findings that challenge several assertions made in the target article. We discuss the roles that visual processing, development, and bilingualism play in visual word recognition and reading. These are overlooked in all current models, but are fundamental to any universal model of reading.

Chemistry, genetics, physics, and linguistics all present instances of reuse. I use the example of how behavioral constraints may have contributed to the emergence of phonemic reuse. Arising from specific facts about speech production, perception, and learning, such constraints suggest that combinatorial reuse is domain-specific. This implies that it would be more prudent to view instances of neural reuse not as reflecting a “fundamental organizational principle,” but as a fortuitous set of converging phenomena.

Kalisch and colleagues highlight coping potential (CP) as a principle resilience mechanism during event engagement. We complement this discussion by exploring generative implicit CP self-models, arguably emerging during “resting-state,” subsequent and prior to events. Resting-state affords a propitious environment for Bayesian learning, wherein appraisals/reappraisals may update active inferential CP self-models, which then mediate appraisal style organization and resilience factor valuation.

Various apparently incompatible theories of hippocampal function have been proposed but integration is now needed. It is argued that the involvement of the hippocampus is most clearly seen when the animal needs to extrapolate beyond current sensory information. Such control can involve both the initiation of behaviour in the absence of appropriate sensory input and the inhibition of behaviour that might otherwise be triggered by current sensory input.

The target article's emphasis on olfaction is a welcome reminder of the multimodal nature of conscious experience. Here, I explore the distinctive and even unique attributes of our sense of smell from the point of view of their bearing on and fit with a subcortical locus of sensory experience.

Predominant experience with females early in development results in infants developing an attractive, female-like facial representation that guides children's attention toward and affective preferences for attractive females. When combined with increased interest in the other sex at puberty, these early emerging biases might help explain the robust prosocial and financial biases men exhibit toward attractive women during adulthood.

We propose a friendly amendment to integrative experiment design (IED), adversarial-collaboration IED, that incentivizes research teams from competing theoretical perspectives to identify zones of the design space where they possess an explanatory edge. This amendment is especially critical in debates that have high policy stakes and carry a strong normative-political charge that might otherwise prevent free exchange of ideas.

Denenberg rightly stresses the importance of studying ethologically meaningful species-specific behavior in animals, and makes the interesting distinction between lateralization at an individual and at a population level. However, in the case of man, I believe Denenberg is wrong in arguing that lateralization in the individual increases with maturation. The overall evidence nowadays tends very much to the contrary. Moreover, with respect to a population, why should it become lateralized? If there is indeed an advantage for the individual in hemispheric specialization, why should the direction of such specialization be so consistent across a majority of individuals, whether human or, as Denenberg points out, other members of the phylum? Is there an evolutionary advantage in most animals' sharing the same direction, or is it a necessary consequence of some other preexisting, more fundamental anatomical, biochemical, or physical property of the organism and its constituents? If the former, why are not all members of the species, rather than just a majority, lateralized in the same direction? (Or, to put it another way, what is the evolutionary advantage to the species or individual of dimorphism, of retaining a minority who polarize in the opposite direction?) If the latter - i.e., if lateralization is a necessary consequence of some prior state - then there should not be any dimorphism, exceptions, or minority members, unless they are somehow disadvantaged in consequence. Indeed, there is some evidence of a cognitive deficit in sinistrals, though it is disputed (see Bradshaw 1980 for review), and others have even suggested that the species as a whole may benefit in some way from such an uneven dimorphism (Levy 1974), but what evidence is there for such propositions with respect to rats, apes, monkeys, or chicks? This is an issue that should be addressed in any general model that includes laterality in animals. [See Corhallis & Morgan: “On the Biological Basis of Human Laterality” BBS 1(2) 1978.]

Evidence from many species suggests that social, developmental, and cognitive variables are important influences on aggression. Few direct activational or organizational effects of hormones on aggression and dominance are found in nonhuman primates. Female aggression and dominance are relatively frequent and occur with low testosterone levels. Social, cultural, and developmental mechanisms have more important influences on dominance and aggression than hormones.

The authors propose that many morbidities higher in women than men are adaptations protecting survival, selected because survival has been especially crucial to mothers' reproductive success. Following their lead, I pursue variation in tradeoffs between reproduction and survival recognized by Darwin that were likely central to the evolution of many traits that distinguish us from our great ape cousins.