Editing Wason selection task (section)

==== Evaluation of social relations hypothesis ====
Davies et al. (1995) have argued that Cosmides and Tooby's argument in favor of context-sensitive, domain-specific reasoning mechanisms as opposed to general-purpose reasoning mechanisms is theoretically incoherent and inferentially unjustified.<ref name="DFF">{{cite journal |last1= Davies |first1= Paul Sheldon |last2= Fetzer |first2= James H. |last3= Foster |first3= Thomas R. |year= 1995 |title= Logical reasoning and domain specificity |journal= [[Biology and Philosophy]] |volume= 10 |issue= 1 |pages= 1–37 |doi= 10.1007/BF00851985 |s2cid= 83429932 }}</ref> Von Sydow (2006) has argued that we have to distinguish deontic and descriptive conditionals, but that the logic of testing deontic conditionals is more systematic (see Beller, 2001) and depend on one's goals (see Sperber & Girotto, 2002).<ref name="vonSydow2006">{{cite thesis | last=von Sydow| first=M. | title= Towards a Flexible Bayesian and Deontic Logic of Testing Descriptive and Prescriptive Rules| year=2006| location=Göttingen | publisher=Göttingen University Press | doi=10.53846/goediss-161 | s2cid=246924881 |url=https://ediss.uni-goettingen.de/handle/11858/00-1735-0000-0006-AC29-9| type=doctoralThesis | doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Beller2001">{{cite book |last=Beller |first=S. |editor1-last=Moore |editor1-first=J. D. |editor2-last=Stenning |editor2-first= K. |chapter=A model theory of deontic reasoning about social norms |title=Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society |year=2001 |location=Mahwah, NJ |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum |pages=63–68}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sperber |first1=D. |last2=Girotto |first2=V. |year=2002 |title=Use or misuse of the selection task? |journal=Cognition |volume=85 |issue=3 |pages=277–290 |doi=10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00125-7 |pmid=12169412 |citeseerx=10.1.1.207.3101 |s2cid=2086414}}</ref> However, in response to [[Satoshi Kanazawa|Kanazawa]] (2010),<ref name="Kanazawa2010">{{cite journal |last1=Kanazawa |first1=Satoshi |author-link1=Satoshi Kanazawa |date=May–June 2010 |title=Evolutionary Psychology and Intelligence Research |journal=[[American Psychologist]] |volume=65 |issue=4 |pages=279–289 |doi=10.1037/a0019378 |pmid=20455621 |url=http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/AP2010.pdf |access-date=February 16, 2018}}</ref> [[Scott Barry Kaufman|Kaufman]] et al. (2011) gave 112 subjects a 70-item computerized version of the contextualized Wason card-selection task proposed by Cosmides and Tooby (1992) and found instead that "performance on non-arbitrary, evolutionarily familiar problems is more strongly related to general intelligence than performance on arbitrary, evolutionarily novel problems",<ref name="KDRG">{{cite journal |last1=Kaufman |first1=Scott Barry |author-link1=Scott Barry Kaufman |last2=DeYoung |first2=Colin G. |author-link2=Colin G. DeYoung |last3=Reis |first3=Deidre L. |last4=Gray |first4=Jeremy R. |date=May–June 2010 |title=General intelligence predicts reasoning ability even for evolutionarily familiar content |journal=[[Intelligence (journal)|Intelligence]] |volume=39 |issue=5 |pages=311–322 |doi=10.1016/j.intell.2011.05.002 |url=https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Kaufman-DeYoung-Reis-Gray-2011.pdf |access-date=February 16, 2018}}</ref> and writing for ''[[Psychology Today]]'', Kaufman concluded instead that "It seems that general intelligence is very much compatible with evolutionary psychology."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kaufman |first1=Scott Barry |author-link1=Scott Barry Kaufman |date=July 2, 2011 |title=Is General Intelligence Compatible with Evolutionary Psychology? |journal=[[Psychology Today]] |publisher=Sussex Publishers |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201107/is-general-intelligence-compatible-evolutionary-psychology |access-date=February 16, 2018}}</ref>