Glover argues that separate representations underlie the planning and the control phase of actions, and he contrasts his model with Goodale and Milner's perception/action model. Is this representation indeed an independent representation within a more general action system, or is it an epiphenomenon of the interaction between the perception/action systems of the Goodale–Milner model?

In addition to the infant cry being a signal for attention, it may also be a critical component of the early formation of attachments with caregivers. We consider the complex development of that attachment, which involves reciprocal interactive signaling and a host of evolutionarily conserved caregiver factors.

Values will be central to developing a more balanced social psychology. A nonconformist account of Asch's (1956) experiments is used to illustrate the role of multiple values and to support and extend Krueger & Funder's (K&F's) claims. A balance of values, one that goes beyond accuracy and truth, and that avoids absolutism and relativism, is needed.

Dialogue requires ability beyond the production and comprehension of word strings. The interactive alignment account is good as far as it goes, but it must be embedded in a broader model encompassing alignment of paralinguistic representations.

The central theoretical issue of Wegner's book is: Why do we have the illusion of conscious will? I suggest that learning requires belief in the autonomy of action.

Some forms of religion may in some cases alleviate existential anxieties and help maintain morality; yet religion can also persist without serving any such functions. Atran & Norenzayan (A&N) are unclear about the importance of these functions for a theory of the recurrence of religious beliefs and behaviors.

We find the idea that infant crying arises from thermoregulation more consistent with a coregulatory account of its evolutionary history than it is with the informational account advocated in the target article.

Studies with primates in sequence production tasks reveal that chimpanzees make action plans before initiating responses and making on-line adjustments to spatially exchanged stimuli, whereas such planning isn't evident in monkeys. Although planning may rely on phylogenetically newer regions in the inferior parietal lobe – along with the frontal lobes and basal ganglia – it dates back to as far as five million years ago.

Evidence is presented indicating that mainstream social psychology material leads undergraduates to conclude that people are irrational. To help address the problems identified by Krueger & Funder (K&F), a new statistic, the Goodness of Judgment Index (GJI), is presented. A concrete example based on a recent study is used to show how the GJI can be used to bring some balance back to research emphasizing error and bias.

Atran & Norenzayan (A&N) fail to address several problems with commitment theory as it relates to non-kin altruism in religious contexts. They (1) provide little support for the contention that religious sacrifices function as signals, (2) do not distinguish between religious specialists and lay believers, and (3) conflate definitions of cooperation and sacrifice.

The sensation of will is not the same thing as the will itself any more than the sensation of hunger is the same thing as being devoid of nutrients. This is not a really surprising claim, but it is the only claim to which Wegner is entitled in his book.

Understanding neural anatomy and physiology depends on first understanding the behaviour being mediated. Glover, in his review of earlier work suggesting various dichotomies in visual processing, shows how there is a tendency to oversimplification if this approach is ignored. His own new proposals demonstrate the advantages of allowing function to drive anatomical analysis. Nevertheless, the new planning–control dichotomy he proposes, though a valuable advance, is itself an oversimplification of what must be a multi-channel system.

The signal functions of infant crying cannot be understood properly without due attention to their ontogenetic development. Based on our own research on the development of infant cries, we argue that the controversies in cry literature will not be solved by static models, but that progress will made only when considering ontogenetic changes in interpreting cry data.

Pickering & Garrod's (P&G's) interactive alignment account corresponds directly with the account Skinner (1957) gave in his book Verbal Behavior. This correspondence becomes evident when “properties of verbal stimuli” substitutes for “channels of alignment.” Skinner's account appears to have the dual advantages of requiring fewer basic terms and integrating the field of verbal behavior with the whole field of human behavior.

Wegner's conclusion that conscious will is an illusion follows from a key omission in his analysis. Although he describes conscious will as an experience, akin to one of the senses, he omits its objective correlate. The degree to which behavior can be influenced by its consequences (voluntariness) provides an objective correlate for conscious will. With conscious will anchored to voluntariness, the illusion disappears.

Soltis' analysis of signal functions of young infants' cries stimulates testable questions regarding abuse, neglect, and infanticide. Nevertheless, his evolutionary perspective oversimplifies the cry event, and does little to promote developmental analysis of crying during infancy. Studies of the cry in its behavioral and developmental context are needed if we are to understand the proximate causes of optimal and suboptimal care.

Krueger & Funder (K&F) spend too much time on their critique of some classic studies in social psychology. They should have spent more time developing their constructive ideas about better methodologies and, especially, better conceptual foundations for the field. We endorse their exhortation to consider social behavior in its ecologically adaptive context, and we present a few ideas of our own about how to develop a more comprehensive conceptual framework.

Atran & Norenzayan (A&N) have not adequately supported the epistemic component of their proposal, namely, that God does not exist. A weaker, more probable hypothesis, not requiring that component – that the benefits of religious belief outweigh those of disbelief, even though we do not know whether or not God exists – is available. I counsel them to use Ockham's razor, eliminate their negative epistemic thesis, and accept the weaker hypothesis.

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.”

I share the authors' stance on the dialogic or interactional character of language. The authors, however, have left actual interaction out of their conception of dialogue. I sketch a number of organizations of practices of talking and understanding that supply the basic arena for talk-in-interaction. It is by reference to these that mechanisms for speech production and understanding need to be understood