I agree with Luisa that the concept of "the social brain" is confusing in the readings, and it might be better to have an account-independent explanation to understand it better. I also share her concerns about the overstatements in some accounts. Still, I enjoyed both readings.
In the Atzil paper, the authors emphasize that "the infant brain is not a miniature version of the adult brain." The Lockwood paper doesn't mention infants at all. In the infant literature, there’s growing interest in topics like affiliation and social relationships. There are looking time studies that show that infants can make inferences about social relationships at a very early age. While I’m not claiming this ability is innate (though some people are thinking this), I’m curious how both accounts would interpret these early inferences. Also what about newborn sensitivities to ostensive cues? What about communication?
The Atzil paper places parental care at the core of allostasis, but I’m confused about the evolutionary advantages this offers for humans, compared to other non-human animals.
In the Lockwood paper, even though it was really interesting, I think the evidence they present is not sufficient to support their arguments about processes that can be socially specialized at the implementation and algorithmic levels.
I think social cognition is a difficult area to study which makes it even more interesting!