All group traits, “emergent” or otherwise, are ultimately dependent on the traits and behaviours of the individuals that constitute the group. Unless a process of “group reproduction” is envisaged, this means that the evolution of group traits can in principle be studied in an individualistic way, by studying the dynamics of the underlying individual traits on which they depend.

The inherence heuristic provides an intriguing and novel explanation for early thought in a variety of domains. Exploring similarities and differences in inherent reasoning across social and nonsocial domains can help us understand the role that inherent thinking plays in the development of human reasoning and the process by which more elaborate essentialist reasoning develops.

Newell & Shanks' (N&S's) conceptualization of the unconscious is overly restrictive, compared to standard social psychological accounts. The dichotomy between distal and proximal cues is a weak point in their argument and does not circumvent the existence of unconscious influences on decision making. Evidence from moral and developmental psychology indicates that decision making results from a dynamic mixture of conscious and unconscious processes.

The psychology of suicide terrorism involves more than simply the psychology of suicide. Individual differences in social dominance orientation (SDO) interact with the socio-structural, political context to produce support for group-based dominance among members of both dominant and subordinate groups. This may help explain why, in one specific context, some people commit and endorse terrorism, whereas others do not.

Smaldino is right to argue that we need a richer theory of group-level traits. He is wrong, however, in limiting group-level traits to units of cultural selection, which require explanations based on group selection. Traits are best understood when explanations focus on both process (i.e., selection) and product (i.e., adaptation). This approach can distinguish group-level traits that arise through within-group processes from those that arise through between-group processes.

The special sense in which the concept of “selfishness” is defined in Dawkins's popularization of basic evolutionary theory is analyzed with regard to its applicability to the relation between goals and those who entertain and pursue them. It is concluded that grounds analogous to those on which independent self-interest vis-á-vis their hosts is attributed to genes in Dawkins's sense are lacking in the case of goals in their relation to those who entertain and pursue them.

We argue that the claim that essence-based causal explanations emerge, hydra-like, from an inherence heuristic is incomplete. No plausible mechanism for the transition from concrete properties, or cues, to essences is provided. Moreover, the fundamental shotgun and storytelling mechanisms of the inherence heuristic are not clearly enough specified to distinguish them, developmentally, from associative or causal networks.

Research on acoustic communication and its underlying neurobiological substrates has led to new insights about the functioning of central pattern generators (CPGs). CPG-related atypicalities may point to brainstem irregularities rather than cortical malfunctions for early vocalizations/babbling. The “vocal pattern generator,” together with other CPGs, seems to have great potential in disentangling neurodevelopmental disorders and potentially predict neurological development.

We counter Huang & Bargh's (H&B's) metaphoric description of the unconscious, selfish goal on three points. First, we argue, unconscious goals are rooted in conscious choices related to well-being. Second, unconscious goal pursuit occurs through early-stage orienting mechanisms that promote individuals' well-being. Third, unconscious goals work selflessly, resulting in their own demise.

Even if Lankford's biographical examination of perpetrators of suicidal attacks serves to alert us on the role played by individual factors in their recruitment, psychological frailties, distress, or coercion do not exhaust the causal pathways to deadly martyrdom. Normative personality attributes must be explored further in order to ascertain plausible roots of murderous sacrifice. We have advanced (Tobeña 2004b; 2009; 2011) a template of normative temperamental traits that could lead activists to the threshold of volunteering for murderous missions.

In self-adapting dynamical systems, a significant improvement in the signaling flow among agents constitutes one of the most powerful triggering events for the emergence of new complex behaviors. Ackermann and colleagues' comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the brain structures involved in acoustic communication provides further evidence of the essential role which speech, as a breakthrough signaling resource, has played in the evolutionary development of human cognition viewed from the standpoint of complex adaptive system analysis.

The proposed inherence heuristic centers on perceivers' failure to systematically consider external, historical factors when explaining observed patterns. We stress that this does not preclude the potential of subsequently encountered information to challenge intuitions. Drawing on models of diversity-defined social cognition, we discuss how an updating mechanism may reciprocally shape the cognitive infrastructure that underlies reliance on heuristic systems.

Models of cultural evolution need to address not only the organizational aspects of human societies, but also the complexity and structure of cultural idea systems that frame their systems of organization. These cultural idea systems determine a framework within which behaviors take place and provide mutually understood meanings for behavior from the perspective of both agent and recipient that are critical for the coherence of human systems of social organization.

Newell & Shanks (N&S) argue against the idea that any significant role for unconscious influences on decision making has been established by research to date. Inasmuch as this conclusion applies to the idea of an “intelligent cognitive unconscious,” we would agree. Our concern is that the article could lead the unwary to conclude that there are no unconscious influences on decision making – and never could be. We give reasons why this may not be the case.

Drawing inferences about the decision utilities of suicide terrorists from their final action is tempting, but hazardous. Direct elicitation of those utilities would be more informative, but is infeasible. Substituting examination of archival materials for elicitation makes the assumption that leaders and bombers have similar utilities. Insight regarding the beliefs of terrorist leaders might be available from observations of recruitment strategies.

We argue that a comprehensive model of human vocal behaviour must address both voluntary and involuntary aspects of articulate speech and non-verbal vocalizations. Within this, plasticity of vocal output should be acknowledged and explained as part of the mature speech production system.

Evidence that children's system-justifying preferences track the extent of group-based status differences is consistent with the inherence heuristic account. However, evidence that children are inferring inherence per se, or that such inferences are the cause of system-justifying preferences, is missing. We note that, until direct evidence of the inherence heuristic is available, alternative models should not be ignored.

We argue that Smaldino has not established that group-level traits constitute a unit of selection distinct from selection on individuals, as group-level traits are neither replicators nor interactors. Moreover, we argue that Wimsatt's analysis of emergence and aggregativity supports an understanding of group-level and other emergent traits as explanatorily reducible to the individual level.

Here we argue that the selfish goal concept may well be suitable to explain inconsistencies not only in micro-behaviors, but also in the gross behavioral repertoire of an individual, which is often associated with psychopathologies, such as addiction. Neurophysiological evidence for pathological conditions like addiction emerged, and this evidence may also serve as an explanatory model for normal behaviors.

What people report is, at times, the best evidence we have for what they experience. Newell & Shanks (N&S) do a service for debates regarding the role of unconscious influences on decision making by offering some sound methodological recommendations. We doubt, however, that those recommendations go far enough. For even if people have knowledge of the factors that influence their decisions, it does not follow that such knowledge is conscious, and plays a causal role, at the time the decision is made. Moreover, N&S fail to demonstrate that unconscious thought plays no role at all in decision making. Indeed, such a claim is quite implausible. In making these points we comment on their discussion of the literature on expertise acquisition and the Iowa Gambling Task.