Welp...

I knew this would lose steam. About three years have passed since I last posted on here. I have been writing much more since then, but not publishing much of it. I think this is what happens when you have something you want to say, but don't understand how to say it. Some of these previous posts are non-sense. Normally that incoherence would embarrass me and I would delete it all. I am going to resist that this time.

I am going to pivot and write about my thoughts about the importance of adopting an evolutionary perspective.

Why an Evolutionary Perspective

Many of the problems we face within organizations, institutions, and society more broadly are not mechanical problems. They are not systems that can be fully understood by isolating parts and optimizing them independently. They are complex, adaptive systems. And complex, adaptive systems change over time.

An evolutionary perspective provides a way of understanding those changes. Not as the result of a central plan, but as the outcome of variation, selection, and retention operating across multiple levels. When we fail to use that perspective, we tend to design systems that work against the very processes that shape them. We suppress signals, misread feedback, and optimize locally in ways that degrade the system globally.

When we adopt it, we gain a framework for understanding how systems actually behave and how they might be shaped more effectively.

What “Evolution” Means Here

In this context, evolution is not limited to biology.

It is a general process:

• Variation: different behaviors, ideas, or structures exist within a system

• Selection: some persist or spread based on the environment

• Retention: successful variants are maintained or reproduced over time

This process operates wherever there are entities that differ, environments that apply pressure, and mechanisms for persistence.

Another way to approach this is through four questions:

1. What is the system trying to do? (function)

2. What are the mechanisms that produce that behavior? (process)

3. How did those mechanisms develop over time? (history)

4. How does the system change in response to its environment? (adaptation)

These questions can be asked of organisms, organizations, cultures, and ideas.

Adaptive vs. Well-Adapted

There is an important distinction between being well-adapted and being adaptive.

A well-adapted system performs effectively within a specific environment. It is optimized for current conditions.

An adaptive system, by contrast, is able to change as conditions change. It preserves the ability to respond, to learn, and to reorganize.

The tension between these two states shows up everywhere. Systems that are highly optimized often become brittle. Systems that remain adaptive may sacrifice short-term efficiency for long-term resilience. Understanding that tradeoff is essential when designing or evaluating any system that operates over time.

Layers of Explanation

Human systems are not simple.

Any given behavior can be explained at multiple levels:

• biological

• psychological

• social

• cultural

• historical

Each layer adds context. None is sufficient on its own.

This layered view helps explain why interventions that make sense at one level often fail at another. A policy that appears rational at a structural level may conflict with incentives, norms, or cognitive tendencies at other levels. To understand human systems, we need to hold multiple layers at once.

Sources and Synthesis

The ideas here are not created in isolation.

They are informed by work across several domains:

• evolutionary biology

• cognitive science

• complexity science

• systems theory

My reading includes work by authors such as:

• Richard Dawkins

• Daniel Dennett

• David Sloan Wilson

• Robert Sapolsky

• Steven Strogatz

• Geoffrey West

• Douglas Hofstadter

• Anil Seth

• Andy Clark

• Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber

• Steven Pinker

• Eugenia Cheng

• James Gleick

These works operate at different levels of rigor and abstraction. My goal is not to reproduce academic work, nor to simplify it into something unrecognizable. It is to find a middle ground that is more accessible than academic writing, but more structured and grounded than informal intuition.

The Claim

This project rests on two related claims.

First, at the collective level:

Adopting an evolutionary perspective allows us to build theories and design systems that better reflect the environments people actually operate within. Systems built with this perspective are more likely to produce outcomes aligned with their intended goals.

Second, at the individual level:

Adopting this perspective equips people to navigate uncertainty. It supports better adaptation in novel environments and shifting landscapes. In both cases, the value is the same. It is not about predicting the future with precision. It is about building systems and empowering people that can respond to it.

This is an ongoing effort.

Each piece that follows is an attempt to explore one part of this space.

Nothing here is final.

It is a signal, sent outward.