Coding, causality, and statistical craft: The emergence and evolutionary drivers of moralistic supernatural punishment remain unresolved

The target article from Turchin et al. assesses the relationship between social complexity and moralistic supernatural punishment. In our evaluation of their project, we argue that each step of its workflow -- from data production and theory to modeling and reporting -- makes it impossible to test the hypothesis that its authors claim they are testing. We focus our discussion on three important classes of issues: problems of data, analysis, and causal inference.

Perceived morality of direct versus indirect harm: Replications of the preference for indirect harm effect

Royzman and Baron (2002) demonstrated that people prefer indirect harm to direct harm: they judge actions that produce harm as a by-product to be more moral than actions that produce harm directly. In two preregistered studies, we successfully replicated Study 2 of Royzman and Baron (2002) with a Hong Kong student sample (N = 46) and an online American Mechanical Turk sample (N = 314). We found con- sistent evidential support for the preference for indirect harm phenomenon (d = 0.46 [0.26, 0.65] to 0.47 [0.18, 0.75]), weaker than effects reported in the original findings of the target article (d = 0.70 [0.40, 0.99]). We also successfully replicated findings regarding reasons underlying a preference for indirect harm (di- rectness, intent, omission, probability of harm, and appearance of harm). All materials, data, and code are available at osf.io/ewq8g.

Marvel Cinematic Universe Introductions

Petrinovich’s target article focused on how behavioral science is done, including how it is often done wrong, and how it should be done. I identify another malign influence on behavioral science, which, so far as I know, has, until now, been ignored (I would be happy to be shown that I am wrong on this). To wit, the way that Introductions to papers are written creates a niche that can be exploited for the purposes of promoting one’s work to obtain resources or status, or for self-aggrandizement. I offer a few, probably wrongheaded, suggestions for ending this practice.

What Future for Evolutionary Biology? Response to Commentaries on “The Illusions of the Modern Synthesis”

The extensive range and depth of the twenty commentaries on my target article (Noble, 2021) confirms that something has gone deeply wrong in biology. A wide range of biologists has more than met my invitation for “others to pitch in and develop or counter my arguments.” The commentaries greatly develop those arguments. Also remarkably, none raise issues I would seriously disagree with. I will focus first on the more critical comments, summarise the other comments, and then point the way forward on what I view as a necessary and long-overdue transition in the foundations of biology.

The Limits of Marginality

The “marginality principle” for linear regression models states that when a higher order term is included, its constituent terms must also be included. The target article relies on this principle for the fixed-effects part of linear mixed models of ANOVA designs and considers the implication that if extended to combined fixed-and-random-effects models, model selection tests specific to some fixed-effects ANOVA terms are not possible. We review the basis for this principle for fixed-effects models and delineate its limits. We then consider its extension to combined fixed-and-random-effects models. We conclude that we have been unable to find in the literature, including the target article, and have ourselves been unable to construct any satisfactory argument against the use of incomplete ANOVA models. The only basis we could find requires one to assume that it is not possible to test point-null hypotheses, something we disagree with, and which we believe is incompatible with the Bayesian model-selection methods that are the basis of the target article.

On evolution, change, and beyond

This paper discusses Hubert Haider’s target-article “Grammar change: A case of Darwinian cognitive evolution”. I show why such an article is fascinating (and unconventional), although I will mainly concentrate on several disagreements with Haider and will suggest alternative views to those contended by this scholar. My discussion will highlight five main issues: (1) Haider assumes a purely Neo-Darwinian (i.e. genocentric) view of evolution and inheritance, lacking a more pluralistic approach; (2) Haider rejects the idea of language as a biological phenomenon, while at the same time he seems to assume several characteristics related to a biologically seated trait; (3) as opposed to Haider’s suggestion, the computational system does not need to be language-specific; (4) Haider’s divide between the procedural and declarative components of grammar is perhaps too strict regarding (grammatical) change; and (5) Haider considers that there is no scientific way of deciding the question of language origins and evolution and that complex grammars are too recent. However, I show that a language-like computational power (and perhaps complex grammars) already existed many thousands of years ago.

Talent: A contestable, but not contested, concept?

Our target article on ‘Innate talent’ had two objectives, first to acknowledge the 20th anniversary of the seminal contribution by Howe, Davidson and Sloboda (1998) and second, to update this information as it relates to talent in the domain of sport. Many thanks to all the authors that took the time to provide commentaries on our review. Broadly, our target paper focused on 1) whether the concept of innate talent was reasonable and scientifically sound and 2) whether the concept of innate talent had any utility to those working at the coalface of sport science (e.g., coaches, scouts, etc.). All of the commentaries were complimentary to our review, which suggested continued interest in this area (although this was noted as surprising by Hambrick and Burgoyne). We have tried to respond to all of the interesting points raised by the commentaries, but this was not always possible. That said, we grouped our responses under general themes below. Our impression, based on the commentaries, is that innate talent is not a contested concept; in that there appears to be agreement (for the most part) that, ‘this thing exists’. Rather, the concept of innate talent is contestable (Gallie, 1956); that is, there is debate about exactly what it is, the degree of its influence, and how useful the concept of innate talent is.

Being realist(ic) about behavioral variability

Though we concur with the conclusions of the target article by Arocha (2021), in this commentary, we argue that his critiques of psychology’s standard research practices are not grounded in his scientific realism but in a (tacit) realistic theory about human behavioral variability. Then, we argue that both this tacit theory and his recommendations are already encompassed by the complex systems approach to psychology. We conclude that, taken together, these arguments strengthen Arocha’s conclusion and recommendations.

Quiet Eye: The next generation – comment on Vickers

In this commentary on Joan Vicker’s target article (2016), we first recognize the work she has done in the last 35 years. We then provide examples of differentiations of the Quiet Eye (QE) that might be necessary to fully understand the multifacetedness of the phenomenon. Here we propose, as in our current review (Rienhoff, Tirp, Strauss, Baker, & Schorer, 2016), for the QE a differentiation by the mechanisms behind it. We suggest another categorization in the research on training the QE. Additionally, we provide further areas of research that are interesting for the future, namely the QE across life-span and the (in)dependence of the perceptual-motor processes.

The Unbearable Limitations of Solo Science: Team Science as a Path for more Rigorous and Relevant Research

Both early social psychologists and the modern, interdisciplinary scientific community have advocated for diverse team science. We echo this call and describe three common pitfalls of solo science illustrated by the target article. We discuss how a collaborative and inclusive approach to science can both help researchers avoid these pitfalls and pave the way for more rigorous and relevant research.