What Are the Grand challenges for Cultural Evolution?

What Are the Grand
Challenges for Cultural
Evolution?
A Research Report for the Society for the Study of
Cultural Evolution
Prepared by:
Joe Brewer Ian MacDonald
Culture Designer Biology Researcher 
Evolution Institute Binghamton University

What You Will Find In This Report
An ad hoc steering committee initiated steps to form the Society for the Study of Cultural Evolution
(SSCE) in the summer of 2015. As part of the inaugural proceedings, a survey of SSCE members
was conducted to identify a suite of "grand challenge" problems of broad scientific and social
interest that can drive cutting-edge research and practice within the field of cultural evolutionary
studies for future decades.
Over the course of several weeks, a total of 236 SSCE members from around the world completed
an online questionnaire in which they could nominate up to ten such challenges, providing a brief
description and rationale for each. Additionally, SSCE members were also asked to indicate their
level of understanding and mode of training in core domains (cultural studies and evolutionary
theory), how they see their current work fitting into the wider world of cultural evolutionary studies,
and how they see themselves contributing to the grand challenges facing the society.
The responses to the initial grand challenges survey are summarized below.
Qualitative Assessment — Close-Text Semantic Analysis of Survey Responses
As noted above, we received 236 completed surveys. Respondents could nominate more than
one grand challenge, so we received a total of 435 Grand Challenge Ideas. The methodology used
to analyze the content of these Grand Challenge Ideas is called close-text semantic analysis
which is to closely read each text entry and create a coding system of hashtags for thematic
content found within them.
The procedure goes like this:
1. Place all Grand Challenge Ideas (GCIs) in a single spreadsheet column.
2. Go through all 435 GCIs and create hashtags for content by filling in the accompanying row
for each entry.
3. Build up a "master list" of these hashtags to create thematic categories for organizing the
responses.
4. Count the number of entries “tagged” by each hashtag as a measure of thematic
composition and emphasis.
5. Construct “network graphs” that reveal how the most prominent themes cluster together in
order to create complex thematic categories that reveal key relationships between the
hashtags (and the themes they represent).1
Special thanks to Ken Cousins of The Vicinus Group for conducting this network graph analysis for us.1
What Are The Grand Challenges For Cultural Evolution? Prepared on November 9, 2015

Before going into the ﬁndings from this analysis, it may be helpful to see what a typical Grand
Challenge Idea looks like. Here are two representative examples taken from the survey responses.
Note how both are richly sophisticated and thoughtfully articulated. The full collection of responses
came through this way. We really have a phenomenal community of engaged participants in our
founding membership at the SSCE!
Grand Challenge Response — Representative Example 1
Learning how to harness the power of conformist biased transmission to support political
policy or health related measures that are widely supported by the public and by specialists
even if not by the small minority of well-heeled lobbying groups. Perhaps this would allow
democratic governments to better work for the people's interest rather than the large,
multinational conglomerates' interest.
Tags: #ConformistBias, #CulturalTransmission, #PolicyMaking, #PracticalSolutions, #CultureDesign
Grand Challenge Response — Representative Example 2
The world is loosing indigenous cultures at an unprecedented rate reﬂected by an
estimated loss of 1 language per day. These cultures hold knowledge and wisdom essential
to humanity's well-being and prosperity. More than 370 million Indigenous Peoples live in
over 90 countries and constitute the largest minority in the world. Indigenous territories
cover 24 percent of the earth’s land surface that harbor 80 percent of the earth’s remaining
biodiversity. Indigenous peoples are the stewards of some of the world’s most biologically
diverse areas, and their traditional knowledge about nature is invaluable. Today, climate
change is among the forces of globalization threatening the very existence of many
Indigenous Peoples; some estimate the world is loosing one indigenous language every
day. Ironically, traditional indigenous knowledge passed down through the centuries offers
highly valuable sources of wisdom to guide all of us in addressing the greatest challenges
of our times, as well as offering sources of knowledge and wisdom as a basis for innovation
and guiding social well-being.
Tags: #Diversity, #ComparingCultures, #CulturalExtinction, #Environment, #Globalization
Another thing to note in the way hashtags are used is that each entry typically was given several
tags—making it possible to add up the number of entries associated with each tag and to capture
the relationships between tags that appear together. The analysis that follows is garnered from
these two types of information.

What Were The Top Ten Hashtags?
A total of 149 hashtags were created (a full list can be found in the appendix at the end of this
report), revealing a great diversity of topics that have been flagged as important for consideration
by the society. The first thing we wanted to know was which thematic elements appear most
frequently in the survey responses.
Since each entry was coded with several hashtags, it was straightforward to add them up and see
which ones occur most frequently. This table shows the top ten themes and gives the number of
entries that were tagged by each of them.
The highest priority theme was knowledge synthesis. It was tagged in 99 of the 435 entries (22.8%
of the total) and appeared almost twice as often as the second-ranked theme of prosociaiity.
Similar second-ranked emphasis was given to culture definition, environmental concerns, cultural
transmission, and economics.
Each theme was treated as a “generally relevant topic” for the entry it was tagged onto. What this
means methodologically is that we created a hashtag each time a new topic appeared as we went
through the survey responses. When the same topic was mentioned again (often with a different,
albeit related, focus), we applied the hashtag to the new entry. Topics were loosely defined
intentionally such that entries can be clustered into categories of themes that are related to each
other in a variety of ways. To help this make more sense, here are brief descriptors for the six most
frequently used thematic elements:
Knowledge Synthesis deals with the need to combine information across disparate fields of
inquiry, such as bridging research from social psychology with anthropological studies of
Thematic Element Frequency of Responses
#KnowledgeSynthesis 99
#ProSociality 51
#CultureDefinition 48
#Environment 46
#CulturalTransmission 45
#Economics 44
#Theory 42
#HistoricTrajectories 38
#ComparingCultures 36

indigenous cultures. Each entry tagged with this theme was a call for synthesis and integration of
knowledge to tackle otherwise intractable problems.
ProSociality deals with the underlying mechanisms that give rise to trust, cooperation, altruism,
and other social behaviors that enhance the functioning for groups of people. Each entry tagged
with this theme was a call for safer communities, better cooperation, and more effective
institutions.
Culture Deﬁnition deals with lingering confusion about the relationship between biology and
culture. Each entry tagged with this theme was a call for greater clarity about the similarities and
differences between inheritance through the diverse mechanisms of genetics, epigenetics, social
behavior, and symbolic culture.
Environment deals with environmental concerns that threaten human communities and the
biosphere in general. Each entry tagged with this theme was a call for action on climate change or
for deeper understandings about the roles played by culture in harmonious (and dysfunctional)
relationships between humans and the more-than-human world.
Cultural Transmission deals with processes of social learning and exchanges of knowledge from
one generation to the next. Each entry tagged with this theme was a call for deeper
understandings about the cognitive, anatomical, and evolutionary aspects of cultural change that
give rise to and constrain the transmission of cultural practices from one person to another.
Economics deals with the foundational social science of productivity and resource allocation in
human societies. Each entry tagged with this theme was a call for clarity about scientiﬁcally
credible economic knowledge and its applications to both organizational management and public
policy.
These are only six of 149 themes that arose at least once in the collection of survey responses—a
rich dataset indeed! For this reason, it is unwieldy to tackle the full complexity of the idea network
comprising all 435 entries. The next step was to rank order the full list of hashtags and see which
ones appear most frequently (not only the top ten listed above). After this we can start to organize
the tags into relational webs of co-occurence to see how the themes clustered together in the full
collection of responses.
Pulling Back To See The Big Picture
We have already seen that our founding members want the society to promote knowledge
synthesis, increase collective learning about the nature of cultural change and how it differs from
genetic evolution, and apply this knowledge to important environmental and economic projects
that impact the real world.

So what else do our founding members want us to focus on? Pulling back to see the bigger
picture, let’s start by looking at the top 50 thematic elements, ranked according to their frequency
in the survey responses.
This graph shows the top ten entries listed above plus the next forty topics that appeared with
decreasing frequency. As you can see there are quite a few worthy themes for consideration, some
of them having fairly obvious relationships with each other.
For example, governance and policymaking are going to have important linkages with each other.
They will also be implicated in attempts to deal with the global crisis (convergence of threats due to
globalization, ecological decline, population growth, and the systemic threats that arise among
them). We can also see how storytelling and science communication are relevant to practical
solutions and are specifically connected for attempts to deal with resistance to evolution both in
the academy and for the lay public.
This tells us that the topics are not separate from each other. They already have semantic
structure where their meanings are interrelated and actions around some will influence or be
influenced by others. Another way to see the systemic nature of these topics is to construct a
graph showing all 149 thematic elements with lines drawn connecting each of them that appears
together in at least one entry. Thicken the connections in a linear manner to represent the number
of times they appear together and you get this mess—affectionally called the “kitchen sink” graph
by the researcher who created it for us.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Top$50$Thematic$Elements$of$Grand$Survey$Results
(%$of$Responses$with$Each$Theme)

The “Kitchen Sink” — A Mangle of Topics From All Survey Responses
For example, if historic trajectories appears in the same entry with technology we draw a line
between them. The line is then made thicker each time they appear together in a new entry. Do this
for a large number of themes and we get a graph like this:
"
This graph is not a full “kitchen sink” because it only includes the topics that appeared at least 13
times in the full collection of survey responses. (This graphic is also simplified further by removing
knowledge synthesis to declutter and emphasize second-tier relationships.) Even when simplified in
this way, we can see that a great deal of clustering exists between the themes—a reflection of the
sophistication and richness for each individual entry as we saw earlier in this report.

The next step we took was to look at the “ego network” for the most prominent themes. This is
done by graphing one topic with all of the others that link to it, revealing how this theme stands in
relation to others. Here is the ego network for knowledge synthesis:
Several things leap out when we view the data in this way. Firstly, we can see yet again how no
topic stands alone. It is not surprising that knowledge synthesis (being the most prominent theme
to come up in survey responses) will be connected to almost every other topic. More interesting to
note is that this theme is linked most strongly with theory, shared language, culture definition,
institutional silos, and method diversity. The structure of this category is revealing itself.
What we can take away from the analysis so far is that SSCE members want to see our fledgling
society organize itself around a process of unification in the social sciences. To do this we
will need to create a shared language to integrate knowledge across disciplinary silos in the
academy. We will have to focus effort on deep theoretical issues—particularly those having to do
with the methodological approaches we take to the study of culture (and how this is similar to or
divergent from the study of biology, physics, and other scientific domains). And we will have to
overcome the institutional barriers that hinder this kind of synthesis, in a sense “evolving” the way
our institutions are set up so they can better enable the integration of knowledge across fields.
Clearly, this implies a need for our society to be collaborative and diverse in its membership.
Tackling this grand challenge will take many years and require that we form excellent relationships
with complementary societies and institutions.

On the practitioner side, we have already mentioned that a number of grand challenge ideas are
about the threats of ecological collapse, issues pertaining to governance and community well-
being, and many other practical (and urgent!) issues. We were able to unpack this by looking at the
ego network for the global crisis theme.
This graph shows how our founding members perceive the human predicament as we enter the
early middle of the 21st Century. The largest linkage, not surprisingly, is with environmental
concerns—principally global warming and the systemic threats associated with it. More revealing
for how we structure the SSCE agenda is how several other themes cluster with each other as they
are referenced to the global crisis. Note how historic trajectories, prosociaiity, economics,
policymaking, governance, complexity, tribalism, and culture design form a tight weave as a
category for strategic engagement.
Some of the implications are:
✦ Practitioners working on the transition to sustainability will need to understand the historic
patterns of civilization and how they relate to our evolved psychological dispositions in
prehistoric times.
✦ The society needs to provide practical guidance for public policy, community development,
and governance through insights about the ways human beings cooperate and build trust,
naturally break down into tribal groups where conﬂict might arise, and how to manage this
complexity with design principles.

✦ All of this will depend upon our ability to tackle the grand challenge of knowledge synthesis
as part of organizational development efforts worldwide. The SSCE needs to balance
scientific rigor with considerable expertise in practical applications.
We could continue this analysis with other themes but the outcomes would be broadly similar. The
topics our founding members want this society to address are systemic both in knowledge area
and practical application. The survey results tell us that we need to cultivate a strongly
collaborative, cross-disciplinary network of partnerships that both advance deep theoretical inquiry
and provide assistance to urgent real-world challenges at every level of society.
So how prepared are we now? The rest of this report offers a glimpse at who the founding
membership is and what we are already capable of doing together.
Quantitative Assessment — Who Are the Founding Members of SSCE?
The survey we sent out included a series of multiple choice questions to help us get a sense of
who the founding membership is, what they do, and how extensive their knowledge is about
cultural evolutionary studies.
The first question we asked was How do you see your current work fitting into the field of cultural
evolutionary studies? Respondents could select one or more of four options. The results are
presented in Table 1 showing that 75% of those who filled out the survey come from the research
world, more than a third are teachers, and a third work on practical applications.
Table
1.
The
propor(on
of
respondents
that
see
their
current
work
as
fi5ng
into
one
(or
more)
of
four

broad
domains
within
the
realm
of
cultural
evolu(onary
studies
(n
=
236).
Note:
members
were
able
to

select
more
than
one
op(on.

A follow-up question was asked about how they would like to contribute to activities through the
SSCE. The results are shown in Table 2 on the next page. The founding members who filled out
this survey are predominantly interested in providing research and educational support to the grand
challenges. Some want to help increase the financial investments in cultural evolutionary studies
(and design practice, as we saw in the qualitative analysis above) through government funding and
private philanthropy.
A strong signal comes through that our members would like to be entrepreneurial and creative
through the society—notable emphasis came with 34% wanting to help improve academic
institutions and 21% having an interest in creating or improving social impact enterprises.
Research Teaching Applied
(Not Active, But)
Interested
0.75 0.38 0.35 0.13

Table
2.
The
propor(on
of
respondents
who
see
themselves
contribu(ng
to
the
grand
challenge
effort

via
several
means
(n
=
236).
Note:
respondents
were
able
to
select
more
than
one
op(on.

So how much do our founding members know about cultural evolutionary studies? And how did
they acquire the knowledge they currently have. We started by separating cultural studies from
evolutionary studies to see how each subdomain of the field is represented by our membership.
This allowed us to look at the relative strengths in each area and—as we’ll see in a moment—to
get a glimpse into the opportunities for educational improvement this society can help make
happen through its activities.
Figure
1.
Distribu(on
of
respondents’
self-‐reported
level
of
understanding
in
the
domain
of
cultural
stud-‐
ies
(n
=
235).
Scale
ranged
from
1
(Novice)
to
7
(Expert).

Contribution to Tackling Grand Challenges Through the SSCE
Proportion of
Respondents
Conduct basic and applied research 0.72
Improve academic institutions to better address societal issues 0.34
Run campaigns that change policy outcomes 0.17
Design policy frameworks and new metrics based on scientific research 0.28
Increase financial support for efforts through government funding 0.11
Increase financial support for efforts through private philanthropy 0.08
Engage in entrepreneurial efforts to build social impact enterprises 0.21
Educate the public through communication pathways in the media 0.55
Other 0.16

Not surprisingly, the founding members have a strong knowledge base in cultural studies. Few
consider themselves novices and most are approaching the level of mastery, while still feeling they
have more to learn.
Figure
2.
Distribu(on
of
respondents’
mode
of
training
within
the
domain
of
cultural
studies
(n
=
232).

Scale
ranged
from
1
(Completely
Self-‐Taught)
to
7
(Completely
Formal
Educa(on).

Interestingly, when we asked how they acquired their training in cultural studies most said it was a
mix of self-directed informal learning and formal academic education. Fewer respondents
described themselves as formally educated than self-educated—indicating that community
members entered their respective ﬁelds of cultural studies through informal and formal pathways.
We ran a subsequent analysis of these results to create a “bi-variate response distribution” that
tells us how the mode of learning corresponds with the level of expertise acquired. The results are
presented in Figure 3.
Figure
3.
The
bivariate
response
distribu(on
of
re-‐
spondents’
level
of
understanding
by
mode
of
training

within
the
domain
of
cultural
studies.
Cell
color
is

scaled
to
the
propor(on
of
overall
responses
in
falling

in
each
(r
=
0.588,
p
<
0.001,
n
=
232).

We then did the same sequence of analysis for evolutionary studies. This is where it gets
interesting because a notable strength stands out. Nearly all respondents described themselves as
being well trained in the Theory of Evolution. Very few described themselves as novices. Yet when
we look at where they received this education a bimodal pattern emerged. The majority of
members are self-taught, with support from formal institutions for some of them.
In other words, while our community is strong on evolution, the academy is not serving them well
enough. A lot of people get trained in evolution on their own.
Figure
4.
Distribu(on
of
respondents’
self-‐reported
level
of
understanding
of
evolu(onary
theory
(n
=

235).
Scale
ranged
from
1
(Novice)
to
7
(Expert).

Figure
5.
Distribu(on
of
respondents’
mode
of
training
within
the
domain
of
evolu(onary
theory
(n
=

233).
Scale
ranged
from
1
(Completely
Self-‐Taught)
to
7
(Completely
Formal
Educa(on).


This becomes even more apparent when we look at the bivariate response distribution in Figure 6.
One “peak” is found at the intersection of formal training and expertise. Another “peak” exists for
people with slightly less conﬁdence in their knowledge who are mostly self-taught. Herein lies an
opportunity to bridge these pathways to educational attainment—bringing the academics together
with practitioners who study evolution on their own.
A lesson we can take away from this analysis is that the SSCE is well positioned to unite cultural
researchers with evolutionary scientists, both in formal academic settings and among practitioners
with informal training. And we can be conﬁdent that we have the requisite human capacities by
looking at Figure 7 combining these dual strengths in one community of people.
Figure
6.
The
bivariate
response
distribu(on
of
re-‐
spondents’
level
of
understanding
by
mode
of
training

within
the
domain
of
evolu(onary
theory.
Cell
color
is

scaled
to
the
propor(on
of
overall
responses
in
falling

in
each
(r
=
0.505,
p
<
0.001,
n
=
233.
Figure
7.
The
bivariate
response
distribu(on
of
re-‐
spondents’
level
of
understanding
of
cultural
studies

by
level
of
understanding
of
evolu(onary
theory.
Cell

colour
is
scaled
to
the
propor(on
of
overall
responses

in
falling
in
each
(r
=
0.466,
p
<
0.001,
n
=
235).

Figure 7 shows more than half of survey respondents with dual strength in cultural studies and
evolutionary theory. Those of us with experience in the academic world know that this is rare
indeed. Most social scientists are not trained in evolution. And many evolutionists remain skeptical
about the applications of biology to human affairs.
These survey responses are a sign of cultural evolution unfolding in real time. People are scattered
across the intellectual landscape with respect to academic institutions and whether they have
formal training or not. And these people are finding each other (or will be able to do so as we build
capacity) under the heading of cultural evolutionary studies.
In Closing — Where Do We Go From Here?
We have learned a great deal from analyzing these survey responses. The next step is to assimilate
these findings and present them back to the SSCE community for discussion, elaboration, and
refinement. To help get this process going, we offer summary points and propose a course of
action.
Summary of Key Findings
✦ The number of responses is a clear indicator of interest in forming this society. We received
435 suggestions for Grand Challenge Ideas from 236 respondents, each articulating a
thoughtful and important commentary for what the SSCE might want to do.
✦ Several focus areas became clear from these Grand Challenge Ideas—a strong focus on
knowledge synthesis, clear delineation of what culture is and how it changes, and
applications of this knowledge to major challenges confronting real-world communities.
✦ The themes offered as grand challenges are plentiful, yet it does feel plausible to tackle
them systemically by acknowledging how deeply interwoven and interconnected they are.
✦ The founding members are uniquely prepared to make this effort a success. We have
strength in both cultural studies and deep knowledge of evolutionary theory in our midst.
✦ Formation of the society itself is a measure of “cultural evolution in action” as we are already
observing a process of those formally trained in academic institutions coming together with
practitioners who have been self-taught, with combinations of both life paths for many of
our members who straddle academic and institutional boundaries.
Now we are ready to begin. This analysis has one primary purpose—to help the ad hoc steering
committee set the SSCE on a launch trajectory that creates real value for its founding members. It
is a great pleasure to see how deeply aligned this community is both in terms of focus areas held in
common and for bringing diverse intellectual strengths that improve our institutions and
communities as we move forward.

Proposed Course of Action
✦ Present these findings to the SSCE community on the Social Evolution Forum and facilitate
discussion about scope and focus.
✦ Convene the ad hoc steering committee in person (already scheduled for late December) to
unpack what we have learned and propose a strategic planning process to present back to
the community.
✦ Build up the community supports—member database, website, publishing and
communication platforms, etc.—for the formation of Special Interest Groups as “action
committees” or task forces that self-organize around different grand challenges.
✦ Weave this process into the parallel track already underway to create bylaws and
membership due structures, plan the first annual meeting of the SSCE, and get members
involved in the process using the grand challenges as organizing themes.
This is an exciting time to work in cultural evolution. The field is ready to pop! And these findings,
while preliminary, are very encouraging for what is possible to achieve through the Society for the
Study of Cultural Evolution for many years to come.

Appendix — Full List of Themes
Theme Number
of
Times
Men<oned
#Adapta(on 16
#AffectControlTheory 3
#Agency 2
#Algorithms 1
#Altruism 2
#AnimalBehavior 5
#AnimalCruelty 1
#Atheism 1
#BrainCulture 5
#Ci(es 1
#Civiliza(onCollapse 2
#CivilSociety 1
#Cogni(on 25
#Collabora(on 19
#Collec(veAc(on 10
#ComparingCultures 36
#Complexity 28
#ConflictResolu(on 20
#ConformistBias 2
#Consump(onPaêrns 1
#Corpora(ons 3
#Corrup(on 5
#CulturalA^rac(on 1
#CulturalEx(nc(on 3
#CulturallyBiasedResearch 6
#CulturalStability 8
#CulturalTransmission 45

#CultureDeﬁni(on
48
#CultureDesign 29
#Cumula(veCulture 22
#CurriculumDesign 1
#Databases 12
#DemographicTransi(on 1
#Development 1
#DirectDemocracy 1
#Diversity 17
#Ea(ngHabits 1
#EcologicalVaria(on 1
#Economics 44
#Educa(on 21
#Emo(ons 1
#EnergyTransi(on 6
#Entropy 3
#Environment 46
#ExtendedLifeSpan 1
#Fairness 6
#FaultyBeliefs 10
#FieldStudies 1
#FinancialSystem 3
#FundingChallenges 1
#GameTheory 1
#GenderDiﬀerences 2
#GenderEquality 8
#GeneCulture 7
#GlobalCrisis 30
#Globaliza(on 10

#Governance 33
#GrandHumanNarra(ve 1
#GroupProcess 4
#HateCrimes 1
#Hierarchy 10
#HistoricTrajectories 38
#HopeVsDespair 2
#HumanBiome 1
#HumanDevelopment 9
#HumanTraﬃcking 1
#HumanUniqueness 18
#HumanUniversals 1
#IncestuousThinking 1
#IncorporateHumani(es 1
#Individualism 1
#Inequality 15
#Informa(onExplosion 2
#Inheritance 7
#Innova(onDiﬀusion 19
#Ins(tu(onalSilos 24
#Inten(onalCommuni(es 1
#Interspirituality 1
#KnowledgeSynthesis 99
#LanguageOrigins 10
#LearningHeuris(cs 25
#LegalTheory 1
#LGBTQViolence 1
#Literacy 1
#Localism 5

#Medicine 2
#Meme(cs 3
#MethodDiversity 23
#Militarism 3
#ModelingStudies 6
#MonetarySystem 1
#Morality 11
#Mul(LevelSelec(on 3
#NetworkedSociety 1
#NewMetrics 2
#NicheConstruc(on 3
#Ontology 1
#Organiza(onDevelopment 26
#OutdatedIncen(ves 1
#PathDependence 2
#PolicyMaking 32
#Poli(calPower 1
#Popula(on 1
#Popula(onGene(cs 4
#PostCapitalism 1
#Poverty 1
#Prac(calSolu(ons 15
#ProblemIden(ﬁca(on 3
#ProSociality 51
#PublicHealth 2
#Publishing 1
#Quan(ﬁedSelf 1
#RaceIssues 6
#RamblingMess 1

#RateOfChange 3
#Reduc(onism 1
#Reframing 1
#Religion 15
#Replicators 3
#ResistanceToEvolu(on 26
#ResourceWars 1
#RuralCommuni(es 1
#ScienceCommunica(on 20
#ScienceStudies 2
#Selec(on 3
#Seman(cs 4
#Sexuality 1
#SharedLanguage 28
#SocialAnaly(cs 1
#SocialConsciousness 4
#SocialIden(ty 1
#Socialism 1
#SocialMovements 15
#SocialOrganiza(on 22
#SocialValues 1
#Storytelling 20
#SystemicRisks 1
#SystemsThinking 2
#Taxes 1
#Technology 13
#TenureProblems 1
#Terrorism 3
#Theory
42

#Transparency 1
#Tribalism 35
#UX/UI 1
#Violence 3
#WorkLifeBalance 1
#Worldviews 1

What Are the Grand challenges for Cultural Evolution?

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (11)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a What Are the Grand challenges for Cultural Evolution?

Semelhante a What Are the Grand challenges for Cultural Evolution? (20)

Mais de Joe Brewer

Mais de Joe Brewer (20)

Último

Último (20)

What Are the Grand challenges for Cultural Evolution?