A debate surrounding modularity—the notion that the mind may be exclusively composed of distinct systems or modules—has held philosophers and psychologists captive for nearly 40 years. Concern about this thesis—which has come to be known as the massive modularity debate—serves as the primary grounds for skepticism of evolutionary psychology’s claims about the mind. In this article we argue that the entirety of this debate, and the very notion of massive modularity itself, is ill-posed and confused. In particular, it is based on a confusion about the level of analysis (or reduction) at which one is approaching the mind. Here we provide a framework for clarifying at what level of analysis one is approaching the mind and explain how a systemic failure to distinguish between different levels of analysis has led to profound misunderstandings of not only evolutionary psychology but also of the entire cognitivist enterprise of approaching the mind at the level of the mechanism. We furthermore suggest that confusions between different levels of analysis are endemic throughout the psychological sciences—extending well beyond issues of modularity and evolutionary psychology. Therefore, researchers in all areas should take preventive measures to avoid this confusion in the future.

围绕模块化的争论——大脑可能完全由不同的系统或模块组成的概念——已经让哲学家和心理学家俘虏了近 40 年。对这个被称为大规模模块化辩论的论文的关注成为怀疑进化心理学关于心灵的主张的主要理由。在本文中，我们认为整个辩论，以及大规模模块化本身的概念，都是不合适的和混乱的。特别是，它是基于对一个人接近心灵的分析（或还原）水平的混淆。在这里，我们提供了一个框架，以澄清人们在何种层次的分析中接近大脑，并解释了系统性未能区分不同层次的分析如何导致不仅对进化心理学而且对接近大脑的整个认知主义事业产生深刻的误解。机制层面的思想。我们进一步认为，不同层次分析之间的混淆在整个心理科学中普遍存在——远远超出了模块化和进化心理学的问题。因此，各领域的研究人员应采取预防措施，避免今后出现这种混淆。