Abstract The broad range of commentaries addressed central debates in the origins, nature, and development of relationship knowledge. These debates mirror those that have played out in other domains: do infants possess innate, abstract primitives for representing relationships? Or is their understanding primarily the result of learning? Should we consider infants’ behavior in experiments a reflection of abstract cognitive concepts or as reflexes or embodied knowledge? The commentaries also raise questions about other possible cognitive primitives as well as the evolutionary roots of such knowledge. What is the result of statistical learning, and what are inductive biases? Ultimately, these commentaries examine how innate representations of relationships may facilitate the resolution of other learning challenges, including the acquisition of cultural norms, institutional roles, group dynamics, and moral principles. Ultimately, I argue that advancing our understanding will require integrative approaches drawing on developmental, comparative, computational, and cultural research. This exchange clarifies many pressing empirical puzzles, setting the stage for a research program that I hope others across disciplines and theoretical standpoints will join in.
Ashley J Thomas (Thu,) studied this question.