This commentary welcomes Singh’s shift from dual inheritance to individual psychology but argues that his model remains incomplete without evolutionary foundations. Cultural variants are not adopted merely because they appear useful – they appeal to evolved motivational systems shaped by natural selection. Integrating adaptive goals, producer–consumer dynamics, and ecological variation transforms subjective selection into a genuinely evolutionary-ecological framework.

Singh’s account explains cultural super-attractors via subjective selection. I extend it to healing rituals and dietary practices, including fasting calendars, sacred or taboo foods, detox narratives, probiotic beliefs, and ceremonial eating. I map these packages to complexity and robustness, specify control-seeking and hedonic mechanisms, derive testable predictions, and outline cross-cultural studies that distinguish satisfaction from objective efficacy for public health.

Western punitive justice systems persist despite weak evidence that they reduce crime. We argue that they function as WEIRD cultural superstitions: punishment intuitively feels effective even when it fails. Drawing on Singh’s framework, historical evidence of punishment’s dominance origins, and our own experiments, we show how subjective selection sustains maladaptive punitive institutions – ultimately raising the question, intuitively effective to whom?

Human societies consistently develop complex, near-universal traditions that exhibit striking similarities. These “super-attractors” span magic and religion (e.g., shamanism, supernatural punishment beliefs), esthetics (e.g., heroic tales, dance songs), and social institutions (e.g., justice, corporate groups), and collectively constitute the “cultural manifold.” Here, I argue that the components of the cultural manifold develop primarily through “subjective selection,” or the production and selective retention of variants evaluated as useful for satisfying goals. Whereas previous explanations emphasize objective individual or group-level benefits, I highlight how subjective selection drives complex cultural convergences worldwide, attesting to the importance of subjective selection in shaping human culture.

We were pleased to read the comments on our target article expressing views from diverse disciplines, including biology, philosophy, psychiatry, anthropology, and numerous branches of psychology (i.e., developmental, cultural, evolutionary, and comparative psychology). In this response, we discuss their ideas about routes to increasing inclusivity in theories of developmental psychology and present our disagreements with the few who argue that there is no need for change to theories. We highlight the commentators’ broad agreement with the main themes of the WILD (Worldwide, In situ, Local, & Diverse) approach and the practical guide of 5 Steps to Inclusivity, and we consolidate commentators’ views on infrastructural changes that are necessary to reach our collective goal of increasing inclusivity in theories of developmental psychology.

Inclusive global theories of child development require local researchers who spearhead research within their own communities. This means creating pathways for researchers from underrepresented contexts to lead projects, define priorities, and collaborate as equal partners, rather than merely act as data collectors. This capacity-building holds the promise of generating more accurate and equitable developmental science research.

Childhood is a cultural project with shared goals, constant adaptation, and struggle; child well-being requires the engaged participation of a child in the cultural activities deemed desirable in that community. The evidence and conceptual frame of this paper show the remarkable varieties of childhoods and cultural contexts found around the world, which affect attachment and shared intention/coordinated joint engagement theories.

As Bard, Keller, and Leavens show, attachment theory does not account for the diversity of child-rearing practices around the world. However, the entrenched commitment to Bowlby’s idea that the attachment system is a biological adaptation prevents attachment researchers from fully understanding the import of such diversity. I argue that this idea relies on a static and flawed view of evolution.

Bard, Keller, and Leavens put a spotlight on the demographic makeup of participant samples in developmental psychology. These participants are generally Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic, echoing a widespread problem in psychology. The authors advocate for an approach that is worldwide, in situ, local, and diverse (WILD). Here, we want to look at WILD work in the domain of navigation, which illustrates some of the challenges involved with the approach.

The authors dismiss two major developmental theories for lacking universal claims, but misrepresentations of attachment theory, joint attention, and sensitivity undermine this critique. Identifying behavioral universals often devolves into debates about exceptional cases and generalizability, and misses the more interesting questions of how behavioral diversity advances species’ adaptive functions. Diversity exists, but it alone is not a developmental theory.

Psychologists have argued for diversification for over 50 years, with little change. At this point, it is clear that inaction is not due to lack of knowledge, convincing arguments, or clever acronyms. Rather, it is driven by psychologists’ priorities, values, and goals that they see as endemic to the field – one that is universal, decontextualized, and generalizable.

Bard, Keller, and Leavens’ proposal for a decolonized science is situated in shared intentionality and attachment theories. I suggest that decolonization is a complex and challenging endeavor that exceeds the scope of WILD. The commentary discusses the need for inclusive leadership, deeper cultural analysis, and broader structural reform in the research enterprise to advance toward decolonization.

We are persuaded by Bard et al.’s argument that cross-cultural work in psychology requires not only a greater diversity of participants but also a greater diversity of theories. We encourage the authors to consider that the solution lies not only in improving experimentally oriented theories but also in adopting non-experimental methods, including purely ethnographic methods.

Bard, Keller, and Leavens’ call for a WILD psychology is timely. This commentary argues that moving beyond WEIRD bias requires accountability and structural transformation, not just awareness or inclusivity. We must challenge the aspiration to universality, embrace multiplicity, and engage in anticolonial praxis to dismantle systemic inequities in knowledge production and achieve genuine epistemic justice in the developmental sciences.

The application of the WILD research framework (Worldwide, In situ, Local, Diverse) to developmental psychology exposes further WEIRD biases. I suggest that Diversity must extend beyond Worldwide sampling to include within-nation variation and suggest that structural and cultural barriers maintaining WEIRD dominance can be mitigated through lightening bureaucratic loads, researcher reflexivity, and cross-disciplinary collaboration.

The biases of WEIRD science need further correction beyond WILD. Specifically, humanity’s million-year-old evolved, species-typical child-raising practices need to be recognized and utilized as baselines for species-normal child-raising practices, limiting the kind of local diversity considered species-typical. Third, considerations of what is considered to be species-normal outcomes should be guided by experiences of species-typical child-raising practices.

Change is slow and elusive. Well-meaning cross-cultural collaborations still reproduce colonial patterns. For the WILD approach to be transformative, it must move beyond a mindset and toward procedural changes that promote equitable and respectful conditions. The WILD approach must resist creating a false dichotomy with WEIRD and acknowledge that culture is alive and globalized.

We fully endorse the authors’ aim and conclusions that we must move toward a deeper and more representative developmental science. We disagree with the authors’ interpretation of the evidence to support their claim. We propose a more inclusive approach to science with a focus on development in action.

This commentary extends the WILD framework to societies undergoing rapid industrialization and globalization. We demonstrate how children in these societies form close attachments to extended kin and non-kin members, consistent with local cultural values and modern societal demands and in contrast to the core assumptions of attachment theory. These caregiving ecologies showcase the functional plasticity of the human developmental system.

We advocate for decolonizing developmental theory beyond sample expansion. Using attachment theory as an example, we demonstrate how current theories misrepresent even Western populations, where allo-parental care is a necessity. We argue that focusing on adaptive challenges, not behavior, will support open-ended theories with universal relevance. This requires reflexivity, transparency, and centering indigenous methods prior to proposing any universal developmental mechanisms.