Joseph Henrich’s The Secret of Our Success (2015) dives into human evolution and the role of culture in shaping our unique success as a species.

Exec Summary

• It’s not our superior intelligence that accounts for human success and ecological dominance
  • Biology and ‘survival instincts’ are insufficient to help us thrive and survive across the globe
• Culture is the ‘secret’ of our success as shaped by cultural evolution
  • Our brains are equipped for cultural learning, and the limited hard-wired instincts cannot explain our success
• We became successful and sophisticated with cultural accumulation of knowledge and behaviors passed down, refined, and expanded across generations, making us far more adaptable than other species
• Natural selection ensured only the most efficient cultural norms survived and improved over time.
  • Selection includes inter-group competition, the groups with the best culture thrived and expanded

FULL SUMMARY

About the Author:
Joseph Henrich is an American anthropologist and professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University.
Henrich is also famous for having coined the popular acronym ‘WEIRD’ to highlight the bias of psychological research. He also wrote ‘The WEIRDest People in the World‘, which grabbed a top spot in our popular ‘best psychology books‘ list.

Current Explanations For Our Success Are Insufficient

The common explanations for our success today relate to:

1. Generalized intelligence or mental processing power
2. Specialized mental abilities evolved for survival in the hunter-gatherer environments of our evolutionary past, and/or
3. Cooperative instincts or social intelligence that permit high levels of cooperation.

Failed Expeditions Provide Evidence That It’s Not IQ or Cooperation

Henrich shows with captivating stories of explorers that our IQ, cooperation, or ‘innate instincts’ are all of little use when faced with novel environments.

Despite the explorers wanting to survive and explore, many of them died.

Instead, the explorers that fared best -and survived- survived because they encountered local populations who had the cultural know-how to survive and thrive.

Culture Explains Our Success & Continuous Progress

Our ability to learn from others is the key to human success.

While other species rely mostly on innate behaviors, we do not.

Humans are the best social and cultural learners.
We learn from our peers, collect the knowledge and progress from those who came before us, and improve it and pass it along.

Hence, as humans, we accumulate a vast pool of knowledge and skills over time & pass it forward with our improvements.
This leads to what Henrich calls “cumulative cultural evolution,” a process that allows humanity to advance thanks to continuous progress.

Our Genetic Uniformity Explains It Wasn’t Genetic Evolution

Species that have been as successful as we split into sub-species that are genetically different from each other.

Redacted for brevity:

Other species also achieved immense ecological success; however, this success has generally occurred by speciation (…) adapted and specialized to survive in different environments.
Ants, for example (…) split, genetically adapted, and specialized into more than 14,000 different species with vast and complicated sets of genetic adaptations

But humans remain a single species with little genetic variation -even less than chimpanzees who have 3 distinct subspecies while confined to a narrow band of tropical African forest-.

It’s our cultural adaptations that explain our success in colonizing the globe.

Evidence to Support We’re Cultural Learners

• Success bias in learning: We naturally learn from more successful others
• Skill bias in learning, preferring to pick skilled role models
• Prestige bias in learning
  • Infants look at more competent individuals
  • We use ‘prestige cues’ to decide who to copy and learn from
• Children look at adults the most under uncertainty, exactly what you’d expect from an evolutionary approach to cultural learning
• Children learn norms by observation and enforce social norms without any adult supervision
• We automatically learn and adapt new norms as we change contexts
  • We tend and prefer complying with social norms
  • We want and enjoy punishing norm violators
  • We are cognitively-biased to spot norm violations
• Self-similarity cues to learn, supposedly because those similar to us are more relevant to us
  • Copying same-sex model is neurologically more rewarding
  • Co-ethnic preferential learning
• Copying self-harming behavior, including suicide that would go against any genetic evolutionary logic

The above is exactly what you’d expect if cultural learning was evolutionarily selected to maximize learning.

Cultural Evolution Domesticated Us Into Prosociality

Henrich first acknowledges there is some merit in the current gene-centric and kin-centric views of cooperation popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker.

But he then adds that that cultural evolution contributed most to cooperation:

And to the degree that we are more cooperative than other mammalian species (and we are), it’s because culturally evolved norms constructed social environments that, over eons, penalized and gradually weeded out aggressive, antisocial types (norm violators) while rewarding the more sociable and docile among us

And:

Through social norms, culture reinforces our kin-based and pair-bonded relationships and dramatically expands our narrow circle from genetic kin to cultural kinship.

The domestication of humans

Says the author:

Repeated norm violations sometimes provoked ostracism or even execution at the hands of one’s community.
Thus, cultural evolution initiated a process of self-domestication, driving genetic evolution to make us prosocial, docile, rule followers who expect a world governed by social norms monitored and enforced by communities.

The domestication of men into dads

In the last more speculative paragraph, the author says that it was pair-bonding, men recognizing their children, and kin-bonds that helped domesticate men, and develop a larger prosociality.

On this website, we also argued in a popular article that women also drove male domestication.
See here:

• How women ‘domesticated’ men to control them

Prosocial norms spread with inter-group competition

Don’t equate ‘domestication’ with ‘weakness’ though.

‘Domesticated’ means less internal fighting and more cooperation.
However, that intra-group cooperation will then more effectively expand the group, and potentially beat or assimilate groups of poorer cooperators:

Having norms that increase cooperation can favor success in competition with other groups that lack these norms.
Over time, intergroup competition can aggregate (…) social norms related to cooperation, helping, sharing, and maintaining internal harmony

Intergroup competition may also put pressure on larger groups to form because cultural advancement benefit from larger and more interconnected groups -‘collective brain’-.

Cooperation trumps deception

In the increasingly cooperative worlds constructed by social norms and reputations, it became relatively more important to communicate and teach others rather than deceive or exploit them.

Cooperation Among Large Societies Underpin Our Success

A major -and persuasive- theme in Henrich’s argument is the role of cooperation in human success.

He explains that human societies are built upon complex webs of exchanges, trust, and cooperation.
Unlike other apes, humans can collaborate with individuals they’ve never met before and share resources and knowledge across large, diverse groups.

This cooperation is facilitated by cultural norms, which encourage behaviors like reciprocity and trust.

Henrich argues that it is these social structures—not just raw intelligence—that enabled humans to build complex societies, create advanced technologies, and thrive across the globe.

Progress & Cultural Evolution Require Prosociality & Cooperation

Cultural evolution needs a web of interconnected individuals to learn from each other and pass that learning to future generations.

And the growth of cultural know-how, what Heirich refers to as the ‘collective brain’, depends on community size and interconnectedness.

This, suggests the author, also explains why only we humans ‘crossed the rubicons’ of ‘autocatalytic’ or self-reinforcing and growing cultural learning.

Chimpanzees for example are hostile to their neighbors, do not pair bond, and do not develop kin relationships. Such persistent hostile relations inhibit adaptive cultural evolution by constraining the flow of cultural know-how.

Social Learning VS Cultural Learning

While many animals engage in social learning, only humans developed the cultural learning systems for the cumulative evolution of sophisticated technologies, complex societies, and institutions.

This ability, the author explains, is central to humanity’s success as a species.

Social Learning

The process of observing and imitating others’ behaviors, decisions, or actions.

• Focus: Individual-to-individual transmission.
• Mechanism:
  • As a by-product of being around others
  • Observational learning
  • Imitative learning (copying without necessarily understanding the underlying principles)
• Limitations:
  • Can lead to naive copying
  • Does not necessarily involve improvement, or shared meaning.
• Example: A child observing an adult using a tool and imitating their movements to achieve a similar outcome.

Cultural Learning

Understanding and internalizing shared norms, beliefs, values, and practices within a group.

• Focus: Group-level transmission and the preservation of shared culture over time.
• Mechanism:
  • Active information seeking from others
  • Includes mental models, making inferences about other people’s goals or strategies
  • Involves teaching, norm enforcement, and language-based explanations.
  • Relies on symbolic communication, storytelling, and shared intentionality.
• Advantages:
  • Allows for cumulative evolution, where ideas are refined and improved over generations.
  • Allows humans to adapt to diverse environments
  • Facilitates the development of complex technologies and social structures.
• Example: A tribe passing down specific hunting techniques, embedded in their rituals and stories, ensuring that future generations learn the mechanics, together with the broader context and purpose.

Cultural Evolution vs. Genetic Evolution

Of course, it’s not one opposing the other, since they co-exist:

natural selection, acting on genes, has shaped our psychology in a manner that generates nongenetic evolutionary processes capable of producing complex cultural adaptations.
Culture, and cultural evolution, are then a consequence of genetically evolved psychological adaptations for learning from other people.

While genetic evolution occurs over long timescales, cultural evolution happens rapidly.

This allows humans to adapt to new challenges much faster than genetic evolution could ever allow.

Cultural Evolution Drives Genetic Evolution

Being faster and ‘better’ at making humans thrive and reproduce, it’s genetic evolution that recently adapts to cultural evolution.

The author says that early in our species evolution we ‘crossed the Rubicon’ of cultural learning to turn it into the primary driver of our development and evolution.
It’s an ‘autocatalytic’ process, meaning that it propels and reinforces itself:

Once cultural information began to accumulate (…) the main selection pressure on genes revolved around improving our psychological abilities to acquire, store, process, and organize the array of fitness-enhancing skills and practices (…).
As genetic evolution improved our brains and abilities for learning from others, cultural evolution spontaneously generated more and better cultural adaptations, which kept the pressure on for brains (…).

Evidence for culture driving genetic evolution

Henrich outlines several examples of culture-driven genetic evolution, including:

• Cooking ➡️ Weaker jaws, smaller intestines
• Learning to learn ➡️ Larger brains, long childhoods, post-birth growth spurt, myelination for brain plasticity
  • Information resources ➡️ Prestige-based leadership
• Collect and transport water ➡️ Persistence hunting ➡️ Sweat glands to make sweat more and run longer
• Artifacts ➡️ Opposable thumb, greater hands dexterity
• Wisdom of age ➡️ Longer lives, menopause
• Cooperation ➡️ Norms psychology, shame & anger for norm violation
• Language ➡️ Throat anatomy changes
• …

Culture Changes Us… Psychologically & Biologically

Says the author:

Even without influencing genes, cultural evolution creates both psychological and biological differences between populations. You, for example, have been altered biologically by the aforementioned cultural download of skills and heuristics.

Biological VS Genetic Evolution

After explaining how psychology changes biology, for example our brain changing with learning to read, or the ‘placebo effect’, the author explains:

These are biological modifications to our brain, but not genetic modifications. They are the end result of thousands of years of cultural evolution, which figured out how to effectively modify our brains without messing with our genetics.

Our biology changes much more easily and faster than our genes.
And cultural differences that impact our physiology and psychology are biological, but not genetic.

I’m grateful to Henrich for this important distinction.

Prestige & Dominance

Humans have two quite distinct forms of leaders: prestige, and dominance.

Prestige

Prestige forms the foundation of leadership even in egalitarian societies, pushing certain people ‘up the social status ladder’.

The author explains that prestige evolved with cultural learning and with the advantage that learning from the best provides to groups and individuals.

However, as social exchange dictates, skilled and successful individuals don’t gain anything by sharing with those who give nothing back.
So people defer to skilled and successful individuals to entice them to teach -or at least to spend more time in their presence-.

Prestigious Men Confer Benefits

I feel the current definition of prestige may be be refined to include any benefit.
A prestigious man may simply be rich, or famous, or the son of a president.

Indeed, says the author in a note:

Besides valuable cultural information (…) high-status individuals might possess “goods” that might be traded for deference benefits.
For example, a beautiful woman (…) less-attractive, women might want to be around her to hang out where the men are (Pinker 1997).
Or the son of a former president might receive deference (…) because of their valuable (inherited) social connections.
From this perspective, the informational goods we discuss above might be merely one type of “good” that can be acquired by paying deference and no different from accessing mates, allies, or social contacts.

I fully agree with the author’s note here.
The informational goods are only one type of value being offered.

We Copy Prestigious Men Based On Who Others Copy

Since we can’t always know who’s best to learn from, people tend do:

• Take cues from others for who is best to listen to, leading to the ‘famous for being famous’ modern phenomenon
• Copy across a range of unconnected domains, leading to the popularity of modern ‘celebrity endorsements’ that have nothing to do with their expertise

Dominance

Dominance is older, inherited from our primate ancestors.

While prestige is based on the ability to confer benefits, dominance is based on the ability to inflict costs.

individuals attain dominance status when others fear them and believe they will use physical violence or other means of coercion if they do not receive deference in the form of appeasement displays and preferred access to mates and resources (e.g., foods).

Prestige VS Dominance

Dominance hierarchies display stronger physical and body language cues with dominant individuals using expansive body language, and subordinate matching with diminutive body language.

Table 8.1., adapted. All credit to Joseph Henrich

Both Prestige & Dominance ‘Work’, Prestige May ‘Work Better’

First off, the available evidence is limited.

But reporting on what’s available (Ruden 2008 and Ruden 2011), paraphrasing Henrich:

both are associated with having more babies with one’s wife, more extramarital affairs, and more likely to remarry after a divorce, even after statistically removing several factors. Beyond this, the children of prestigious men die less frequently, and prestigious men are more likely to marry at younger ages (neither of these effects held for dominant men).

And:

Not surprisingly, both dominant and prestigious men tended to get their way at group meetings, but only prestigious men were respected and generous.

‘Generous’ is not a benefit of course but a cost.
But ‘respected’ most certainly is an advantage.

Being ‘liked’ is also a small advantage, and another study suggests that prestigious men are liked, but dominant ones are not.

Deeper influence is a major advantage though, also going to prestigious men (redacted for brevity):

in dominance relationships, subordinates are influenced by the dominant out of fear.
By contrast, (…) (prestigious men) become truly persuasive such that learners often shift their underlying opinions, beliefs, and practices to be more similar to the prestigious individual.
(…)
In addition (…) prestigious individuals are influential both because people shift their opinions and practices to match the prestigious, and because people to go along with prestigious individuals as a form of deference, even if they don’t agree.

Frankly, I wasn’t sure the second reason added any benefit for the prestigious individuals since people ‘are inclined to go along’ with dominant individuals as well.
But the ‘deeper influence’ is most certainly a plus.

Finally, the author did his own research with Cheng and Tracey, who later wrote a fantastic book on the psychology of social status.
And concluded:

Being either more prestigious or more dominant led to greater influence on their group’s task outcome.

And about the differences:

Dominant individuals tended to (1) act overbearing, (2) credit themselves, (3) use teasing to humiliate others, and (4) be manipulative. Meanwhile, prestigious individuals (1) were self-deprecating, (2) attributed success to the team, and (3) told jokes.

Social Status & Reputation Are Shields

Others may want to attack you or take from you, but a strong social status protects you because their attack would lower their social status.

However, if your social status is low, others can attack and take from you at will.
You surely can defend yourself, but attacks and taking can be covert or hidden. Hidden attacks may even be encouraged against people with a bad reputation.

The author also claims that we’re wired to monitor our reputation and spot people with low reputation because it means we can exploit them.

Careful: nations & religions manipulate your mind

Something we often warned about here at TPM:

intergroup competition will tend to favor the spread of any tricks for expanding what members of a group perceive as their tribe.
Both religions and nations have culturally evolved to increasingly harness and exploit this piece of our psychology, as they create quasi-tribes.

I couldn’t agree more.

Look at the jihadists fighting to expand their ‘culture’.
Or populist politicians, using tools of political manipulation such as nationalism and ingroup/outgroup dynamics.

This feature of our social psychology holds the key to humanity’s future.

Also read:

• Individual-first self-development
• Red pill group dynamics

MORE WISDOM

Cultural learning in gender-identity matters

In fact, children learn their sex roles because they copy same-sex models, not vice versa.

Traditional rational categories are useless

the processes I’ve described above actually make classical racial categories even less informative, since they operate in diverse and nonconcordant ways within races to make local groups less similar (e.g., lactase persistent and nonpersistent Africans) while at the same time making different continental races more similar (e.g., amylase genes in Japanese and Americans). The current evidence indicates that natural selection operates in diverse ways on scales much smaller than races and simultaneously on different continents.

Plus, the author adds, categories are problematic since many variations vary continuously, rather than in discrete boundaries.

However, I wasn’t too convinced about this.
The author himself later shows that traditional racial categories do say something:

Overall, traditional racial categories capture only about 7% of the total genetic variation in our species, which reveals that races are nothing like the subspecies found in chimpanzees. Given our global distribution and range of environments, our species genetic variation is actually rather limited.

Of course as they stand they may be ‘nothing like chimpanzees subspecies’.
But one may categorize people differently than ‘traditional racial categories’ and capture a higher genetic variation.

Placebos work based on culture

Redacted for brevity:

placebo treatments for ulcers in Germany are twice as effective (…) Meanwhile, lower blood pressure placebo does not work in Germany.
Germans worry a lot about low blood pressure (…) so the placebo effect may be inhibited by this culturally transmitted concern.

Intergroup competition maximizes internal cooperation and norms

Under threat, increased sanctions (…) may have favored an unconscious innate response to cling more tightly to our social norms and groups (…)
This means that cues of intergroup competition should promote greater solidarity and identification with one’s group, as well as stronger norm adherence.

Shame displays keep us within the group

After breaking a norm or offending the wrong person, shame displays and submissiveness sub-communicate that we do accept the social norm, and that we’re sorry for breaking it.

Plus, it indirectly requests to ‘be lenient’ on the rule breaker.

Start deliberations with the lowest-ranking members first

Or you’ll never hear their voice and ideas, as they either don’t speak up, or conform with the higher-ranking speakers.

Prestige -and society’s success- depends on what’s a ‘valued domain’

prestige derives from success, skill, or knowledge in locally valued domains.
While not infinitely malleable, what constitutes a valued domain is amazingly flexible. The differential success of societies and institutions will hinge, in part, on what domains are valued.

Norm-followers are more selfless if the social norms support pro-sociality

A study showed that norm-followers gave more Dictator Games, contributed more in the Public Goods Game, and punished low offers more frequently in the Ultimatum Game -pro-social dominance- (redacted for brevity):

Observance of a costly nonsocial rule, like waiting at traffic lights, is linked to complying with, and punishing, social norms in behavioral games.
(…)
It’s our automatic norm following—not our self-interest or our rational calculation—that often makes us do the “right thing” and allows society to work.

First learn the rules, THEN you can strategize around them

in humans you first need to acquire the social norms and rules governing the world you are operating in, and only then is strategic thinking useful.

We have several resources here to learn the game and then strategize accordingly, including:

• Social exchange
• Social Exchange Practical Takeaways
• Sexual marketplace
• …

QUOTES

On human dominance demanding an explanation:

we are the ecologically dominant species on the planet. Yet, they open the question of why us? What explains our species’ ecological dominance? What is the secret of our success?

We were too powerful for the animals who didn’t evolve to cope with us:

African and Eurasian megafauna evolved to recognize that while we appear rather unintimidating, and perhaps easy prey given our lack of claws, canines, venom, and speed, we come with a dangerous bag of tricks, including projectiles, spears, poisons, snares, fire, and cooperative social norms that make us a top predator.

On the ‘unfair exchange’ between explorers and Intuits:

Ross (…) enthusiastically learned about Inuit hunting, sealing, dogs, and traveling by dog sledge. In return, the Inuit learned from Ross’s crew the proper use of a knife and fork while formally dining.

Poking some fun at economists and their sometimes non-psychologically-informed models:

The difference in the results from each version surprised the economists who designed the experiment (though, admittedly, many economists are pretty easily surprised by human behavior)

On academia power hierarchies (you can’t say the author hasn’t a knack for a good joke):

Maciej Chudek, Sue Birch, and I tested this prestige idea more directly. Sue is a developmental psychologist and Maciej was my graduate student (he did all the real work)

And:

I teamed up with my colleague Jess Tracy, an emotion and social psychologist, and our then junior colleague Joey Cheng (who did all the hard work).

The best antidote for pseudo-science:

The best antidote for pseudoscience is real science
(…)
What we need is more evolution-grounded science on genes, culture, ethnicity, and race, not less.

On what fuels the power of the collective brain:

If you want to have cool technology, it’s better to be social, than smart

On the power of the collective brain:

We are smart, but not because we stand on the shoulders of giants or are giants ourselves. We stand on the shoulders of a very large pyramid of hobbits.

CRITICISM

As always, this section is in the spirit of providing some possible pushback to hopefully further advance my/our understanding:

Toddlers VS Apes: Does It Prove We’re Not Smarter?

The author convinced me that our intelligence alone can’t explain our success.

However, I was not convinced by human toddlers ‘losing’ to apes.

I listened to these comparisons and struggled to give it a fair chance to persuade me.
I was only impressed by how some thought toddlers fairly represented human intelligence.

The test to assess ‘Machiavellianism’ was unconvincing -no construct validity-

After humans lost an experiment against apes, the author suggests that apes are more Machiavellian than humans.

The test was a ‘Matcher and Mismatcher in an Asymmetric Matching Pennies Game’.

Again, I’m prone to agree with the author that the ‘Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis‘ is severely weakened in light of his evidence and logic.

But NOT because of the humans VS apes experiment.
Humans failed because they look for patterns, which is a feature extremely helpful in many other cases.
I didn’t find the experiment to be a valid test for Machiavellianism -or manipulation-.

High-Status Men’s Charity Explanation Unconvincing

The author claims that high-status men -think Warren Buffett or Bill Gates- do charity to encourage others to do the same, and gain by living in more charitable societies.

It’s an interesting take and it’s probably part of the motivation.

However, I don’t believe it’s the main factor.

The main factors, I believe, are virtue-signaling for:

• Status and mating
• Legacy and power-projection after death for enduring influence
• Influence by picking the ‘right’ causes
• Simple good feelings that come with giving

Does Roger’s Paradox Undermine Cultural Learning?

From the Cambridge Handbook on Evolutionary Perspectives:

This phenomenon became known as Rogers’ paradox” (…).

The fact that social learning does not enhance average population fitness is not inherently paradoxical, but does contradict the common claim that humans are so ecologically and demographically successful because of transmitted culture.

Rogers’ paradox occurs because the success of social learning is frequency dependent.
When rare, social learners do well because they forego the costs borne by individual learners. But when common, and environments change, social learners will be copying other social learners’ outdated information.

At equilibrium, social and individual learners have equal fitness, which will be equal to the fitness of a population entirely composed of individual learners (which is fixed, because their learning is not dependent on others). Thus, social learning evolves, but does not enhance fitness in a way that could be described as the “secret to our success.”

But Mesoudi himself later explains why this is not a real paradox:

However, transmitted culture can enhance the average fitness of a population when:

(1) individuals learn selectively, only copying others when individual learning is inaccurate or selectively copying successful individuals; and/or

(2) socially learned traits can be accumulated over successive generations such that individuals can learn socially what they could never invent alone: this is the cumulative culture noted above (Boyd & Richerson, 1995; Enquist et al., 2007; Kendal et al., 2009).

Furthermore, I’d add: who says that social learners will always copy everything, including the outdated and ineffective parts?

Rogers’ model assumes a basic form of social learning — simple copying — but human social learning is often strategic, evaluative, and flexible.

That is where human intelligence may kick in, and smart learners may be able to reverse engineer why what they do works, retaining what works and discarding what doesn’t (and potentially improving along the way).

CONS

• Clarification on ingroup-outgroup may be confusing

Says the author:

this approach means that the in-group versus out-group view taken by psychologists misses a key point: not all groups are equally salient or thought about in the same way

I don’t think anyone ever said that all groups are the same.
The ingroup/outgroup concept instead come out reinforced with the author’s contributions.

• It may indirectly over-promote ‘folk wisdom’ against science

The author lists impressive rituals to show that cultural evolution leads to effective solutions.

I bet that is the case, but I wouldn’t want people to over-trust the ‘wisdom of the crowds‘ or ‘wisdom of the ancients’.

The author knows this: one may as well list elaborated rituals that are not effective, or even harmful.

One quick note on this may have prevented confusion.

REVIEW

The Secret of Our Success is a paradigm-shifting book on human nature and evolution.

For decades, Darwin’s genetic evolution was seen as the sole driving force behind evolutionary processes and shaped much of evolutionary psychology thinking.
As decades of further research and refinements deepened our understanding of gene-centric evolution, it also entrenched the gene-centric narrow focus.

But we may now be at a turning point.

The groundbreaking work of bright thinkers like Joseph Henrich and Robert Boyd presents a compelling case for a broader perspective—one that includes cultural evolution as a critical driver of human development.

Henrich’s insights on cultural evolution don’t just reshape how we think about evolution and psychology; they have even deeper implications for the future of civilization and human progress.

While there wasn’t much we could do about genes in the short term, there is much we can do to maximize our culturally-driven process.

Let’s Keep Fueling the Secret of Our Success

Human success thrives on global cooperation, shared knowledge, and the collective progress that comes from building on each other’s contributions.

At TPM, we believe it’s our responsibility to uphold and advance this path—standing firm against the forces of populism, tribalism, and destructive, short-sighted, lose-lose selfishness.

Check the best evolutionary psychology books or get this book on Amazon.