Other-Than-Honorable Military Administrative Discharges: Time for Confrontation

This Comment examines the military\u27s current procedure for discharging service-members and imposing undesirable, other-than-honorable service, characterizations on their service records. The author suggests that due to the potential for erroneous imposition of damaging other-than-honorable service characterizations, the process of handling such discharges should be made procedurally more careful. The author further suggests that either additional due process rights be grafted onto the current administrative discharge system, or that the other-than-honorable discharge process be placed in the hands of the military court-martial system

The evolution of self-control

This work was supported by the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) through support of a working group led by C.L.N. and B.H. NESCent is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) EF-0905606. For training in phylogenetic comparative methods, we thank the AnthroTree Workshop (supported by NSF BCS-0923791). Y.S. thanks the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project 31170995) and National Basic Research Program (973 Program: 2010CB833904). E.E.B. thanks the Duke Vertical Integration Program and the Duke Undergraduate Research Support Office. J.M.P. was supported by a Newton International Fellowship from the Royal Society and the British Academy. L.R.S. thanks the James S. McDonnell Foundation for Award 220020242. L.J.N.B. and M.L.P. acknowledge the National Institutes of Mental Health (R01-MH096875 and R01-MH089484), a Duke Institute for Brain Sciences Incubator Award (to M.L.P.), and a Duke Center for Interdisciplinary Decision Sciences Fellowship (to L.J.N.B.). E.V. and E.A. thank the Programma Nazionale per la Ricerca–Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR) Aging Program 2012–2014 for financial support, Roma Capitale–Museo Civico di Zoologia and Fondazione Bioparco for hosting the Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione–CNR Unit of Cognitive Primatology and Primate Centre, and Massimiliano Bianchi and Simone Catarinacci for assistance with capuchin monkeys. K.F. thanks the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 20220004. F. Aureli thanks the Stages in the Evolution and Development of Sign Use project (Contract 012-984 NESTPathfinder) and the Integrating Cooperation Research Across Europe project (Contract 043318), both funded by the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme (FP6/2002–2006). F. Amici was supported by Humboldt Research Fellowship for Postdoctoral Researchers (Humboldt ID 1138999). L.F.J. and M.M.D. acknowledge NSF Electrical, Communications, and Cyber Systems Grant 1028319 (to L.F.J.) and an NSF Graduate Fellowship (to M.M.D.). C.H. thanks Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (10J04395). A.T. thanks Research Fellowships of the JSPS for Young Scientists (21264). F.R. and Z.V. acknowledge Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Project P21244-B17, the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007–2013)/ERC Grant Agreement 311870 (to F.R.), Vienna Science and Technology Fund Project CS11-026 (to Z.V.), and many private sponsors, including Royal Canin for financial support and the Game Park Ernstbrunn for hosting the Wolf Science Center. S.M.R. thanks the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada). J.K.Y. thanks the US Department of Agriculture–Wildlife Services–National Wildlife Research Center. J.F.C. thanks the James S. McDonnell Foundation and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. E.L.M. and B.H. thank the Duke Lemur Center and acknowledge National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R03 HD070649-02 and NSF Grants DGE-1106401, NSF-BCS-27552, and NSF-BCS-25172. This is Publication 1265 of the Duke Lemur Center.Cognition presents evolutionary research with one of its greatest challenges. Cognitive evolution has been explained at the proximate level by shifts in absolute and relative brain volume and at the ultimate level by differences in social and dietary complexity. However, no study has integrated the experimental and phylogenetic approach at the scale required to rigorously test these explanations. Instead, previous research has largely relied on various measures of brain size as proxies for cognitive abilities. We experimentally evaluated these major evolutionary explanations by quantitatively comparing the cognitive performance of 567 individuals representing 36 species on two problem-solving tasks measuring self-control. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that absolute brain volume best predicted performance across species and accounted for considerably more variance than brain volume controlling for body mass. This result corroborates recent advances in evolutionary neurobiology and illustrates the cognitive consequences of cortical reorganization through increases in brain volume. Within primates, dietary breadth but not social group size was a strong predictor of species differences in self-control. Our results implicate robust evolutionary relationships between dietary breadth, absolute brain volume, and self-control. These findings provide a significant first step toward quantifying the primate cognitive phenome and explaining the process of cognitive evolution.PostprintPeer reviewe

Towards a Wilder Community

Item does not contain fulltex

How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology

Now more than ever animal studies have the potential to test hypotheses regarding how cognition evolves. Comparative psychologists have developed new techniques to probe the cognitive mechanisms underlying animal behavior, and they have become increasingly skillful at adapting methodologies to test multiple species. Meanwhile, evolutionary biologists have generated quantitative approaches to investigate the phylogenetic distribution and function of phenotypic traits, including cognition. In particular, phylogenetic methods can quantitatively (1) test whether specific cognitive abilities are correlated with life history (e.g., lifespan), morphology (e.g., brain size), or socio-ecological variables (e.g., social system), (2) measure how strongly phylogenetic relatedness predicts the distribution of cognitive skills across species, and (3) estimate the ancestral state of a given cognitive trait using measures of cognitive performance from extant species. Phylogenetic methods can also be used to guide the selection of species comparisons that offer the strongest tests of a priori predictions of cognitive evolutionary hypotheses (i.e., phylogenetic targeting). Here, we explain how an integration of comparative psychology and evolutionary biology will answer a host of questions regarding the phylogenetic distribution and history of cognitive traits, as well as the evolutionary processes that drove their evolution.</p

How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology

Now more than ever animal studies have the potential to test hypotheses regarding how cognition evolves. Comparative psychologists have developed new techniques to probe the cognitive mechanisms underlying animal behavior, and they have become increasingly skillful at adapting methodologies to test multiple species. Meanwhile, evolutionary biologists have generated quantitative approaches to investigate the phylogenetic distribution and function of phenotypic traits, including cognition. In particular, phylogenetic methods can quantitatively (1) test whether specific cognitive abilities are correlated with life history (e.g., lifespan), morphology (e.g., brain size), or socio-ecological variables (e.g., social system), (2) measure how strongly phylogenetic relatedness predicts the distribution of cognitive skills across species, and (3) estimate the ancestral state of a given cognitive trait using measures of cognitive performance from extant species. Phylogenetic methods can also be used to guide the selection of species comparisons that offer the strongest tests of a priori predictions of cognitive evolutionary hypotheses (i.e., phylogenetic targeting). Here, we explain how an integration of comparative psychology and evolutionary biology will answer a host of questions regarding the phylogenetic distribution and history of cognitive traits, as well as the evolutionary processes that drove their evolution