Laughing, humor, and tickling, but not tearing and crying, involve the give-and-take that provides value and a basis for exchange in the psychosexual marketplace.

Pylyshyn defends a distinction between early visual perception and cognitive processing. But exactly where should the line between vision and cognition be drawn? Our research on object identification suggests that the construction of an object's visual description is isolated from contextually derived expectations. Moreover, the matching of constructed descriptions to stored descriptions appears to be similarly isolated.

The two-dimensional model of social relations outlined in the target article has striking convergence with empirically derived dimensional models of interpersonal perception, inter-group perception, and face evaluation. All these models posit two-dimensional structures related to perceptions of valence/affiliation and power/status. Although these models are parsimonious, they may be insufficient to account for behaviors in specific contexts.

We are not entirely satisfied with the evolutionary explanation provided by Suddendorf & Corballis (S&C) for why only humans should be capable of advanced mental time travel. General social factors do not suffice, given that other primates are also highly social. We discuss the evolutionary mechanisms that have generated mental time travel typical to humans, focusing on ecological factors.

As modelling becomes a popular approach in the study of biological systems it is necessary to clarify its concepts and dimensions. This helps to characterize and to distinguish models but cannot establish their quality. The virtue of a model depends on the insight gained in respect to a specific scientific question, and it is hard to measure this with a theory.

Newell & Shanks (N&S) show that there is no convincing evidence that processes assumed to be unconscious and superior are indeed unconscious. We take their argument one step further by showing that there is also no convincing evidence that these processes are superior. We review alternative paradigms that may provide more convincing tests of the superiority of (presumed) unconscious processes.

This commentary focuses on the bidirectional links between unconscious influences and decision making. In particular, it examines the extent to which awareness is (not) necessary to the impact of decisions on psychological processes such as preferences. This analysis might help researchers to gain an extended perspective of Newell & Shanks' (N&S's) concerns regarding the role of unconscious influences in theories of decision making.

A simple working taxonomy with three classes of pictorial completion is proposed as an alternative to Pessoa et al.'s classification: area, surface, and contour completion. The classification is based on psychophysical evidence, not on the different phenomenal attributes of the stimuli, showing that pictorial completion is likely to involve mechanistic interactions in the visual system at different levels of processing. Whether the concept of “filling-in” is an appropriate metaphor for the visual mechanisms that may underlie perceptual completion is questioned.

On the basis of a reinterpretation of the International Sexuality Description Project (ISDP) data, we suggest that findings are consistent with the view that human reproductive behaviour is largely under social control. Behaviours associated with a high Sociosexual Orientation Index (SOI) may be part of a progressive change in reproductive behaviour initiated by the dispersal of kin that occurs as societies modernize.

Rachlin's argument rests on his definition of an altruistic action. Three main features characterize this definition: An altruistic act (1) always has a negative value, (2) is a subset of self-controlled actions, and (3) is meaningful only in the context of repeated interactions. All three features are highly questionable.

Emotional reactions are rather flexible, due to the schema-like organization of complex socio-emotional situations. Some data on emotion development, and on certain pathological conditions such as alexithymia, give further support for the psychological constructivist view put forward by Lindquist et al. Narrative organization is a key component of this schematic organization. The self-related nature of narrative organization provides scaffolding to the contextual dependency of emotions.

Cultural and dual-inheritance models of evolution present ambiguities not typically present in biological evolution. Criteria and the ability to specify the adaptive value of a trait or cultural practice become less clear. When niche construction is added, additional challenges and ambiguities arise. Its dynamic nature increases the difficulty of identifying adaptations, tracing the causal path between a trait and its function, and identifying the links between environmental demands and the development of adaptations.

Critics of evolutionary psychology object that it is not rigorous science compared to other evolutionary science. Advocates reply that it is rigorous science, and that the critics are uninformed. Still, informed people having opposing preconceptions of what counts as rigor may reach opposing evaluative conclusions. I shall clarify the very idea of rigorous evolutionary histories in relation to the basic objection that “evolution without history” is not rigorous.

Models are not adequately evaluated simply by whether they capture the data, after the fact. Other criteria are needed. One criterion is parsimony; but utility and generality are at least as important. Even with respect to parsimony, however, the case against feedback is not as straightforward as Norris et al. present it. We use feedback consistency effects to illustrate these points.

(1) Mazur & Booth do not explain precontest rise in testosterone. Anticipatory T rise may result from fantasized dominance scenarios. (2) Mazur & Booth conclude that females do not experience the dominance–T rise effect. The data are insufficient for this judgment. (3) Mazur & Booth misstate my position on T and sexuality. I offer an emendation and correction.

“Articulate models” subservient to formal intelligence are imagined to be heterarchies of automata capable of performing the “symbolic (quasi-spatial) syntheses” of Luria (1973), where “quasi-spatial” points to the abstract core of spatiality: the symbol productions, combinations, and substitutions of algebraic reckoning. The alleged cognitive role of internal “topographic images” and of “efference copies” is confronted with this background and denied.

I agree with Burns that an evolutionary theory is required, but I question his multifactorial premise. The arguments for an evolutionary theory are stronger, and one that is more precise than that presented by Burns has already been formulated. This theory, that schizophrenia is “the price that Homo sapiens pays for language,” (Crow 1997a; 2000b, 2004c), generates testable predictions absent from Burns' presentation.

Three points that are implicit in Dixon et al.'s paradigm-challenging paper serve to make prejudice potent. First, prejudice reflects understandings of social identity – the relationship of “us” to “them” – that are shared within particular groups. Second, these understandings are actively promoted by leaders who represent and advance in-group identity. Third, prejudice is identified in out-groups, not in-groups.

It is worthy to supplement Charney with two historical issues: (1) There were two rival trends in the rebirth of genetic thought in the 1960s: the universal and the variation related. This traditional duality suggested that heredity cannot be equated with genetic determinism. (2) The classical debates and reinterpretation of adoption/twin studies in the 1980s regarding intelligence suggested that the environment had a more active role in unfolding the genetic program.

E-Z Reader is a highly successful model of eye-movement control, employing the notion of a serial-sequential attentional spotlight switched from word to word. Evidence of parallel processing of words in text calls this notion into question. Modifications to the model to accommodate this evidence are possible but will not address the fundamental objection that reading should not be seen as “surrogate listening.”