The empirical research on the psychology of argumentation suggests that people are prone to fallacies and suboptimal performance in generating, comprehending, and evaluating arguments. Reasoning and argumentation are interrelated skills that use many of the same cognitive processes. The processes we use to convince others are also used to convince ourselves. Argumentation would be ineffective if we couldn't reason for ourselves.

A proximal mechanism is proposed whereby early crying helps maintain ideal levels of brain activation during the first three postnatal months. The proposal is consonant with both animal and human infant literatures, and new data are presented in its support.

The metaphor of “behavioral momentum” exemplifies modernism at its best and follows in the wake of countless other applications of Newtonian mechanics and “the machine metaphor” to virtually every aspect of the human condition. Modernism, however, has fallen on hard times. Some of the chief reasons why are implicit in the target article by Nevin & Grace.

As demonstrated by several example displays, color illusions challenge color realism, because they involve a one-to-many reflectance-to-color mapping. Solving this problem by differentiating between veridical and illusory colors corresponding to the same reflectance is hampered because of the lack of an appropriate criterion. However, the difference between veridical and illusory color perception can still be maintained.

Speech prosody is essential for verbal communication. In this commentary I provide an integrative overview, arguing that speech prosody is subserved by the same anatomical and neurochemical mechanisms involved in the processing of reward/affective outcomes.

Languages may get the writing system they deserve or merely a writing system they can live with – adaption without optimization. A universal theory of reading reflects the general dependence of writing on language and the adaptations required by the demands of specific languages and their written forms. The theory also can be informed by research that addresses a specific language and orthography, gaining universality through demonstrating adaptations to language and writing input.

Llewellyn's proposal that rapid eye movement (REM) dreaming reflects elaborative encoding mediated by the hippocampus (“seahorse”) offers an interesting perspective for understanding hallucinations accompanying sleep paralysis (SP; “night-mare”). SP arises from anomalous intrusion of REM processes into waking consciousness, including threat-detection systems mediated by the amygdala (“almond”). Unique aspects of SP hallucinations offer additional prospects for investigation of Llewellyn's theory of elaborative encoding.

If sensory organs encode environment, this code must be decoded to perception. The currently dominant theory of perception – predictive coding – assumes a “Bayesian decoder,” a probability function, which will present (to whom?) an optimal guess, given previous encodings of the environment – old codes testing new codes. Such a process would delay perception noticeably. This is inconsistent with the perception of music, which for several reasons must be direct.

Recent research has identified several judgment and decision making tendencies associated with right-leaning political ideologies that are difficult (if not impossible) to explain in terms of stable, negative affective appraisals because they (1) are uncorrelated with the negativity of the stimuli being considered, (2) do not reflect divergent affective evaluations, and (3) can be eliminated by superficial manipulations and interventions.

May interprets the prevalence of non-emotional moral intuitions as indicating support for rationalism. However, research in developmental psychology indicates that the mechanisms underlying these intuitions are not always rational in nature. Specifically, automatic intuitions can emerge passively, through processes such as evolutionary preparedness and enculturation. Although these intuitions are not always emotional, they are not clearly indicative of reason.

This is a welcome attempt to seek common biological principles underlying laterality in animals and humans. I do not think it is wholly convincing, but this is partly because many of the results from nonhuman species are not yet firmly established or understood. I suspect that the author's characterization of lateralization, with the left hemisphere supposedly specialized for communicative functions and the right for spatial and affective functions, will require modification. For instance, it now seems fairly clear that the left hemisphere in humans plays a general role in the production and perception of sequences not restricted to communicative acts (Craig 1980; Kimura 1979), and indeed some of the examples of left-hemispheric specialization listed in Table 2 are not obviously communicative. Even so, there are some fairly striking parallels between humans and nonhumans with respect to the pattern of lateralization, and one suspects that common principles are operating. At the same time, in the enthusiastic search for functional asymmetries, we should not overlook the striking degree of bilateral symmetry that characterizes the brains of all animals, including humans.

We question the generalizability of Glover's model because it fails to distinguish between different forms of planning. The highly controlled experimental situations on which this model is based, do not reflect some important factors that contribute to planning. We discuss several classes of action that seem to imply distinct planning mechanisms, questioning Glover's postulation of a single “planning system.”

Lewis argues convincingly that a DS approach to emotion theory will be fruitful. He also appears to hold that there are DS principles that constitute a theory or are substantial empirical claims. I argue that this latter move is a mistake.

Two standard epistemological accounts are conflated in Dienes & Perner's account of knowledge, and this conflation requires the rejection of their four conditions of knowledge. Because their four metarepresentations applied to the explicit-implicit distinction are paired with these conditions, it follows by modus tollens that if the latter are inadequate, then so are the former. Quite simply, their account misses the link between true reasoning and knowledge.

Susan Hurley's impressive article about the shared circuit model (SCM) raises two important issues. First, I suggest that the SCM presupposes relational coding rather than translational coding as neural code. Second, the SCM being the basis for self implies that the self may be characterized as format, relational, and embodied and embedded, rather than by specific and isolated higher-order cognitive contents.