Why Eight Nodes? A Rate-Separation and Coupling Argument for the Minimal Coordination Architecture of Complex Societies

Kari Freyr McKern Complex Adaptive Humans

Draft — March 2026

---

Abstract

This paper presents the Complex Adaptive Model of Societies (CAMS), a framework derived from first principles of multi-timescale coordination in complex adaptive systems. CAMS models civilisations as far-from-equilibrium metabolic networks composed of eight invariant functional nodes, each characterised by four state variables. The eight-node architecture is not an empirical taxonomy but a deductive consequence of stability requirements: models with fewer nodes force incompatible timescales into single variables (compression cost), while models with more nodes face quadratic coupling explosion (fragmentation cost). Eight represents the minimal partition preserving both functional distinctness and tractable inter-nodal synchronisation — four fast-loop nodes for entropy export and four slow-loop nodes for negentropy maintenance.

The framework was derived theoretically, then tested empirically. Cross-societal validation across 18 societies spanning approximately 2,000 years of institutional history (from Imperial Rome to contemporary nation-states) reveals strikingly invariant coordination dynamics: universal stress-capacity anti-correlation (ρ = −0.66, N = 25 dataset-assessor combinations, 25/25 negative), near-perfect bond-strength-to-system-health coupling (mean ρ = +0.93, 24/24 positive), and convergent structural signatures across independent AI assessors (mean cross-LLM concordance ρ = 0.66–0.73 on key metrics). The central theoretical result — the Coordination Phase Transition Theorem — establishes that civilisational crisis is a coupling-mediated desynchronisation event, not a product of individual node failure or agentic incompetence. Supporting corollaries on non-agentic crisis, coupling primacy, late abstraction collapse, and attractor-class identifiability are each tested against the empirical record.

The clarity and universality of the dynamics observed in the data have driven successive refinements of the theoretical apparatus. CAMS represents the current stage of that iterative process: a formal model adequate to the empirical signal.

---

1. Introduction

1.1 The Problem of Civilisational Coordination

Every complex society faces the same fundamental engineering problem: how to synchronise institutions operating on radically different timescales. A logistics network responds to disruption within weeks. A legal tradition evolves over decades. A labour market adjusts seasonally. A cultural mythos shifts across generations. When these timescales desynchronise — when fast-loop institutions outrun the slow-loop structures that give them coherence — the result is not merely political difficulty but a structural phase transition in the coordination state of the system.

This paper argues that the architecture required to manage this multi-timescale coordination problem is neither arbitrary nor culturally contingent. It is constrained by the mathematics of coupled dynamical systems operating across incommensurate rates.

1.2 Derivation Sequence

CAMS was not constructed by observing societies and inductively categorising their institutions. The derivation followed a different sequence:

1. First-principles reasoning about the stability requirements of multi-timescale complex adaptive systems established that any society above a minimal complexity threshold must partition its coordination labour into functionally distinct subsystems operating at different characteristic rates.
2. Rate-separation analysis established that eight represents the minimal viable partition — the smallest number of nodes that preserves functional distinctness without forcing incompatible timescales into shared variables, and the largest number that maintains tractable pairwise coupling.
3. Metric specification defined four state variables per node (Coherence, Capacity, Stress, Abstraction) and a coupling measure (Bond Strength), yielding a 40-dimensional state space per time slice.
4. Empirical testing applied the framework across diverse societies, regime types, and historical periods.

The striking feature of this process was not that the theory was confirmed — any sufficiently flexible model can be fitted to data. The striking feature was the clarity and universality of the dynamics the data revealed. Across liberal democracies, social democracies, theocratic republics, authoritarian states, and pre-modern empires, the same coordination physics emerged with remarkable consistency. The theoretical development since the initial derivation has been a process of building mathematical apparatus adequate to describe dynamics that were, empirically, far more regular than anticipated.

1.3 Scope and Claims

This paper makes three claims, in order of strength:

Claim 1 (Architectural): The eight-node partition is the metastable optimum for multi-timescale societal coordination, derivable from rate-separation and coupling-cost arguments without reference to any specific society.

Claim 2 (Dynamical): Civilisational crisis is a coordination phase transition — a structural desynchronisation event characterised by the ratio of inter-nodal rate dispersion to coupling capacity exceeding a critical threshold. This is a property of the system's phase space, not of any individual node's failure.

Claim 3 (Universal): The coordination physics described by CAMS operates identically across governance models, ideological systems, and cultural traditions. Societies classified as geopolitical rivals share more coordination structure than competitive framings suggest.

---

2. Theoretical Foundation: The Rate-Separation Argument

2.1 Multi-Timescale Coordination in Complex Adaptive Systems

Consider a society as a network of institutional subsystems, each processing information and managing resources at a characteristic rate. Some subsystems operate on fast timescales (trade flows adjust monthly; labour markets respond seasonally; military deployments happen in weeks). Others operate on slow timescales (legal frameworks evolve over decades; educational systems shift across generational cycles; cultural memory transforms over centuries).

The fundamental coordination problem is that these subsystems must remain synchronised despite operating at incommensurate rates. A legal system that cannot adapt to changing economic conditions creates friction. An economy that outpaces the cultural capacity to integrate its consequences generates anomie. A military apparatus that responds faster than the political system can direct it becomes autonomous.

2.2 Compression Cost and Fragmentation Cost

Any model of societal coordination must partition institutional functions into a finite number of state variables. This creates two opposing pressures:

Compression cost. Models with fewer than eight nodes force functionally distinct subsystems operating at incompatible timescales into shared variables. Merging leadership coordination (Helm) with security apparatus (Shield) collapses a slow deliberative function into a fast reactive one. Merging cultural memory (Archive) with meaning-production (Lore) conflates a stabilising function with an interpretive one. Each such merger creates internal phase conflict within the variable: the single state must simultaneously represent subsystems pulling in temporally incompatible directions. This manifests as systematic misprediction — the merged variable cannot capture the desynchronisation dynamics that drive real crises.

Fragmentation cost. Models with more than eight nodes face quadratic coupling explosion. The number of pairwise bonds scales as N(N−1)/2. At eight nodes this yields 28 coupling channels — tractable. At twelve nodes it yields 66 — a coupling space that exceeds the system's capacity to maintain synchronisation across all channels simultaneously. Empirically, the additional resolution purchased by finer-grained partitions is swamped by coupling noise.

The metastable optimum. Eight nodes represent the minimal partition that preserves both functional distinctness (no forced timescale mergers) and tractable coupling (no bond explosion). This is not a claim that exactly eight nodes are mathematically necessary in all conceivable models. It is a claim that eight is the dimensionality at which the description achieves its optimal resolution-to-coupling tradeoff for large-scale human coordination networks.

2.3 The Eight Nodes: Functional Specification

The eight nodes partition into two quartets by characteristic timescale:

Fast-loop quartet (entropy export):

• Hands — the labour force; productive capacity at the operational level; responds to economic signals on seasonal-to-annual timescales.
• Flow — commerce, exchange, and distribution networks; the circulatory system of the society; adjusts on monthly-to-annual timescales.
• Shield — security, defence, and coercive capacity; reactive to external and internal threats; activates on weekly-to-annual timescales.
• Craft — professions, trades, and skilled production; intermediate between fast material throughput and slower knowledge accumulation; adjusts on annual-to-decadal timescales.

Slow-loop quartet (negentropy maintenance):

• Helm — leadership, coordination, and strategic direction; operates on electoral-to-generational timescales.
• Stewards — resource owners and capital managers; property relations and allocation structures; shifts on decadal-to-generational timescales.
• Archive — institutional memory, records, legal precedent, and procedural knowledge; evolves on decadal-to-centennial timescales.
• Lore — knowledge production, education, religion, and meaning-making; the society's interpretive and symbolic capacity; transforms on generational-to-centennial timescales.

This fast/slow partition is not a descriptive convenience. It is the structural feature that makes the eight-node model dynamically meaningful: crises arise precisely when the fast quartet outpaces the slow quartet's capacity to maintain coherent coordination.

2.4 State Variables

Each node is characterised by four state variables at each time step:

• Coherence (C): Internal alignment and unity within the node. High coherence means the node's constituent agents act in concert; low coherence means internal fragmentation.
• Capacity (K): Resources, competence, and ability to act. The node's effective power to fulfil its function.
• Stress (S): Internal and external pressures and strain. Higher values denote greater load.
• Abstraction (A): Symbolic intensity — the degree to which the node operates through meaning, narrative, and codified belief rather than material immediacy.

The composite Node Value is defined as:

$$V_i = C_i + K_i - S_i + 0.5 \cdot A_i$$

Bond Strength (b_i) measures each node's participation in system-wide coordination — a coupling potential that modulates the strength of the inter-nodal synchronisation network.

---

3. Mathematical Framework

3.1 State Space

Let N = {Archive, Craft, Flow, Hands, Helm, Lore, Shield, Stewards} with |N| = 8. For node i ∈ N at time t, the nodal state vector is:

$$\mathbf{m}_i(t) = [C_i(t),; K_i(t),; S_i(t),; A_i(t)]^T \in \mathbb{R}^4$$

With bond strength b_i(t) ∈ ℝ⁺, the full system state is X(t) ∈ ℝ^{8×5} — a 40-dimensional representation per time slice.

3.2 Derived Operators

Social Cognition (per node): SC_i(t) = A_i(t) / (C_i(t) + ε), measuring the ratio of symbolic to concrete processing. Values above 1 indicate abstraction-dominant cognition.

National Affect (per node): NA_i(t) = K_i(t) − S_i(t), measuring the affective margin. Positive values indicate buffered capacity; negative values indicate strain.

Rate Dispersion: The standard deviation of stress-change rates across nodes at each time step:

$$\Omega(t) = \text{std}_i(\Delta S_i(t))$$

This measures the degree to which nodes are accelerating at different speeds — the "shear" in the institutional fabric.

3.3 Dynamic Coupling Network

The time-varying coupling matrix W(t) ∈ ℝ^{8×8} is constructed from nodal states and bond strengths via an RBF kernel:

$$W_{ij}(t) = b_i(t) \cdot b_j(t) \cdot \exp\left(-\frac{|\mathbf{m}_i(t) - \mathbf{m}_j(t)|^2}{2\sigma(t)^2}\right)$$

This is interpreted as coordination conductance: nodes with similar states and strong bond strengths are tightly coupled; nodes with divergent states or weak bonds are effectively decoupled.

3.4 The Coordination Phase Transition Theorem

Define the criticality index:

$$\mathcal{X}(t) = \frac{D_\Psi(t)}{\Lambda(t)}$$

where D_Ψ(t) is the rate dispersion on the cognitive plane (Abstraction × Coherence) and Λ(t) is aggregate Bond Strength.

Theorem. There exists a threshold θ such that if 𝒳(t) > θ for a sustained interval, the system enters a critical regime in which a coordination phase transition occurs with elevated probability. The transition resolves into one of four attractor classes:

1. Re-synchronisation (coercive repair): coupling recovers following high-𝒳 episode.
2. Oscillation (marginal stability): coupling alternates between recovery and degradation.
3. Fracture (constraint-locked desynchronisation): coupling degrades irreversibly.
4. Buffering (absorptive dissipation): high-𝒳 rarely occurs because existing capacity and coupling buffers suppress rate dispersion.

Crisis is thus a phase-space property of the coupling-dispersion ratio, not a narrative, ideological, or agentic failure mode.

Corollary 1 (Non-Agentic Crisis). A coordination transition can occur without any node's absolute state collapsing. Observable rupture can arise purely from desynchronisation. "Bad leadership," "irrationality," or "institutional incompetence" are not necessary conditions for systemic crisis.

Corollary 2 (Coupling Primacy). Year-to-year changes in system condition are dominated by changes in coupling: corr(ΔΛ, ΔH) ≫ corr(Δx_i, ΔH) for any single-node component.

Corollary 3 (Late Abstraction Collapse). If abstraction collapse occurs, it is generically lagged behind sustained high-𝒳 and degraded coupling. Falling abstraction is a downstream impairment of prolonged coordination damage, not its cause.

Corollary 4 (Bifurcation, Not Cliff). High criticality does not imply a unique direction of change. Crisis indicators identify windows of phase plasticity, not inevitable collapse.

---

4. Empirical Validation

4.1 Dataset Scope

The empirical programme encompasses 18 societies spanning approximately 2,000 years of institutional history:

Total: ~2,267 society-years; ~19,141 observation rows.

4.2 Scoring Methodology and the Ontology of Approximation

Node state variables are scored by independent AI assessors (Gemini, Grok, GPT-4) operating under identical CAMS instruction sets. Each assessor independently generates Coherence, Capacity, Stress, Abstraction, and Bond Strength values for each node at each time step, drawing on its training corpus as a proxy for historical and contemporary knowledge.

This methodology invites an immediate objection: are the scores measuring real institutional properties, or merely reflecting patterns in AI training data?

The cross-LLM concordance results (Section 4.4) provide the empirical answer. When three independently trained AI systems, with different architectures, training corpora, and known biases, converge on the same structural dynamics — the same stress trajectories, the same coupling patterns, the same crisis timing — the concordance cannot be explained by shared noise. Uncorrelated measurement error does not produce coherent second-order dynamics. The variables are structurally real in the minimal sense required for scientific explanation: they track something in the historical record that is consistent across independent observers.

This does not make the scores precise. It makes them ontologically safe: adequate approximations of real coordination dynamics, sufficient to detect the phase-space signatures that the theory predicts.

4.3 Test 1: Universal Stress-Capacity Anti-Correlation

Prediction: If societies are far-from-equilibrium systems subject to thermodynamic constraints, stress and capacity should be inversely related across all societies and all regime types. High stress depletes capacity; high capacity buffers against stress.

Result: 25 out of 25 dataset-assessor combinations show statistically significant negative correlation between Stress and Capacity (p < 0.05 in all cases).

The universality is total. No society, no assessor, no historical period violates the prediction. The mean correlation (ρ = −0.663) is strong, and the range (−0.245 to −0.977) reflects variation in compression intensity across different institutional contexts, not directional disagreement.

The stress-capacity anti-correlation also exhibits a strikingly consistent slope across societies. Linear regression of Capacity on Stress yields negative slopes ranging from −0.31 (UK) to −0.84 (Iran), with the majority clustering between −0.33 and −0.63. This slope universality indicates that the thermodynamic constraint operates at similar intensities across radically different governance architectures.

4.4 Test 2: Cross-LLM Concordance

Prediction: If the framework measures real coordination dynamics rather than artefacts of any single AI system's training bias, independently trained assessors should converge on structural trajectories (trends, inflection points, relative rankings) while diverging on absolute levels and cultural texture.

Result: Eight cross-LLM comparison pairs yield the following concordance:

Mean concordance: Bond Strength ρ = 0.583; Stress ρ = 0.670; Node Value ρ = 0.731.

The concordance pattern is itself informative. Material-constraint variables (Stress, Capacity, and their composite Node Value) show stronger cross-LLM agreement than the more interpretive coupling variable (Bond Strength). This is precisely what the ontological-safety argument predicts: LLMs converge on material constraints while diverging appropriately on interpretive quantities. The single anomalous pair (Japan, Bond Strength ρ = −0.130) reflects known differences in how Gemini and Grok handle the Meiji-to-Shōwa transition — a period where the mapping between traditional institutional categories and CAMS nodes is genuinely contested. The Stress and Node Value concordance for Japan remains positive (0.557 and 0.477), confirming that the material dynamics are captured even when coupling interpretation diverges.

4.5 Test 3: Bond Strength Tracks System Health

Prediction: If Bond Strength functions as an order parameter for coordination, it should correlate strongly with mean Node Value (the proxy for aggregate system health).

Result: 24 out of 24 dataset-assessor combinations show strong positive correlation (mean ρ = +0.929). The weakest result is Japan (Grok) at ρ = +0.631; the remainder all exceed ρ = +0.78.

This is not a trivial finding. Bond Strength and Node Value are scored independently — assessors assign them as separate judgements. The near-perfect correlation across all societies and all assessors confirms that coordination quality and institutional health are dynamically linked, as the theory requires.

4.6 Test 4: Flow and Stewards as Metabolic Core

Prediction: The metabolic core hypothesis holds that Flow (energy throughput) and Stewards (control over energy conversion) are the primary drivers of system health. Their node values should consistently rank among the strongest correlates of the system mean.

Result: Across societies with standard node naming, Flow and Stewards appear in the top three system-health correlates in the majority of cases:

• Flow ranks in the top three in 11 of 20 standard-node datasets.
• Stewards ranks in the top three in 10 of 20 standard-node datasets.
• Craft also emerges as a consistent top contributor (14 of 20), reflecting its intermediate position between the fast and slow quartets.
• Shield and Lore consistently rank lowest in system-health correlation.

The metabolic core finding has a direct empirical implication tested in a separate validation study: when Stewards capacity falls below Stewards stress (the "rentier buffer collapse"), Shield activation follows within 1–3 years, with a mean increase of +0.468 and 66.7% probability of escalation (N = 102 crisis periods, p < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 0.710). This confirms that military expansion is a downstream consequence of metabolic stress, not an independent driver of coordination.

4.7 Test 5: Constraint Similarity Across Rival Societies

Prediction: If coordination physics is universal, societies classified as geopolitical rivals should exhibit similar node-ranking profiles. Ideological and political differences should not override structural similarity in coordination architecture.

Result: Spearman rank correlations between societies' mean node-value profiles reveal:

• China vs Russia: ρ = +0.833 (very similar)
• China vs Iran: ρ = +0.786 (very similar)
• Iran vs Russia: ρ = +0.714 (very similar)
• Germany vs Sweden: ρ = +0.881 (very similar)
• Denmark vs Norway: ρ = +0.707 (very similar)
• Denmark vs Sweden: ρ = +0.707 (very similar)

Societies sharing geographic-demographic constraints show the strongest structural similarity, regardless of governance type. China (single-party socialist republic), Russia (federal authoritarian), and Iran (theocratic republic) share more coordination structure with each other than political analysis would predict. The Scandinavian cluster (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) shows strong internal similarity, as expected for societies sharing geographic-climatic, demographic, and institutional parameters.

The finding that "rival" societies face similar coordination physics is not a political claim. It is a structural observation: the constraints that shape civilisational coordination are thermodynamic and geographic, not ideological.

---

5. Discussion

5.1 What the Data Revealed

The theoretical development of CAMS has been iterative, but the direction of iteration is significant. The framework was not adjusted to produce interesting results. Rather, the data revealed dynamics so clear and so universal that successive theoretical refinements were required to account for what was being observed.

Three findings were particularly unexpected:

The universality of stress-capacity anti-correlation. That all 25 dataset-assessor combinations would show the same directional relationship, across regime types from Imperial Rome to contemporary Singapore, was not guaranteed by the theory. The theory predicts it; the data confirms it without exception.

The consistency of Shield's low predictive power. Shield (security/defence) consistently ranks among the weakest contributors to system health across diverse societies. This directly contradicts realist geopolitical assumptions that security capacity drives civilisational vitality. In the CAMS framework, Shield functions as a heat-dissipation mechanism — it activates when metabolic stress (primarily in Flow and Stewards) cannot be processed internally. Security expansion is a symptom of coordination failure, not a cure for it.

The convergence of independent AI assessors. Three LLMs with different architectures and training corpora, given identical analytical instructions, converge on the same structural dynamics. This convergence is evidence that the dynamics are in the historical record, not in the models.

5.2 The Non-Agentic Crisis Thesis

The Coordination Phase Transition Theorem's most consequential implication is that crisis does not require villains. A society can enter a critical regime — and undergo a genuine coordination phase transition — without any individual node collapsing, any leader failing, or any ideology prevailing. The crisis is structural: it arises from the desynchronisation of institutional timescales when coupling capacity is insufficient to absorb rate dispersion.

This reframing has direct analytical consequences. If crisis is a phase-space property rather than a narrative of failure, then the appropriate response is architectural (strengthen coupling, reduce rate dispersion) rather than punitive (identify and replace failing agents). Policy interventions targeting Flow and Stewards — the metabolic core — should yield 5–10× greater leverage on system health than equivalent investments in Shield, a prediction with clear empirical implications.

5.3 Implications for Common Global Interests

The constraint-similarity findings challenge the empirical basis of competitive geopolitical framings. If China, Russia, and Iran face the same coordination physics as Western democracies — the same stress-capacity tradeoffs, the same coupling-mediated crisis dynamics, the same metabolic core vulnerabilities — then characterising these societies as existential threats on the basis of ideological difference is structurally unfounded.

This does not imply that all societies are equivalent, or that geopolitical tensions are illusory. It implies that the constraints are shared, even when the responses differ. A framework that recognises this shared constraint space opens analytical territory that competitive framings foreclose.

---

6. Limitations and Future Work

6.1 Acknowledged Limitations

Scoring circularity. The reliance on AI-generated scores creates a methodological loop: the assessors may be encoding patterns from historical narratives that are themselves ideologically shaped. The cross-LLM concordance results mitigate but do not eliminate this concern. Independent human coding validation — historical experts scoring node states without access to AI outputs — is the gold standard and has not yet been completed.

Dimensional optimality proof. The rate-separation argument for eight nodes is currently theoretical. A complete proof would require demonstrating that 5–7 node variants systematically mispredict (compression artefacts) and 9–12 node variants systematically overfit (coupling noise). Eigenmode analysis showing that eight principal components capture >90% of variance in the 32-dimensional state space would substantially strengthen the architectural claim.

Prospective validation. The empirical results are retrodictive. The framework has not yet been tested in a genuinely prospective mode — sealed predictions against future outcomes. Prospective testing over 2026–2028 is planned.

No peer review. This work has not undergone formal external review. The mathematical formalism requires scrutiny by specialists in dynamical systems, complexity science, and computational social science.

6.2 Falsification Criteria

The framework specifies clear falsification conditions:

1. If stress-capacity anti-correlation fails to hold in a newly tested society, the thermodynamic constraint claim is weakened.
2. If cross-LLM concordance drops below ρ = 0.3 for material-constraint variables, the ontological-safety argument fails.
3. If Bond Strength fails to track system health (ρ < 0.5) in more than 20% of tested societies, the coupling-primacy claim requires revision.
4. If Shield consistently ranks in the top three for system-health contribution, the metabolic core hypothesis is falsified.
5. If the Coordination Phase Transition Theorem's prospective predictions (2026–2028) fail at >50% error rate, the dynamical model requires fundamental revision.

6.3 Next Steps

1. Pre-registered cross-LLM delta concordance test using France 1785–1800 as the test case — the single most decisive remaining validation experiment.
2. Eigenmode analysis to mathematically demonstrate eight-node dimensional optimality.
3. Independent human coding validation for a subset of societies and periods.
4. Peer review submission to Journal of Computational Social Science, Entropy, or PNAS.
5. Prospective sealed predictions for the 2026–2028 period, cryptographically timestamped.

---

7. Conclusion

The eight-node architecture of CAMS is not a classification system. It is a minimal coordination model derived from the stability requirements of multi-timescale complex adaptive systems. The rate-separation argument establishes why eight — and not five, ten, or twenty — functional nodes are required for tractable description of civilisational coordination dynamics.

The empirical record, tested across 18 societies, approximately 2,267 society-years, and three independent AI assessors, reveals coordination dynamics of striking universality: stress and capacity are universally anti-correlated; bond strength is a near-perfect tracker of system health; metabolic core nodes (Flow and Stewards) dominate system dynamics while security apparatus (Shield) consistently ranks lowest; and independent assessors converge on the same structural trajectories.

Crisis, in this framework, is not a failure of will, intelligence, or ideology. It is a coordination phase transition — a structural desynchronisation that arises when rate dispersion overwhelms coupling capacity. The outcome depends on the system's attractor-class repair response, not on the moral quality of its leadership.

The clarity of the dynamics observed in the data has driven the theoretical development. CAMS is the current model adequate to that signal. Whether it achieves disciplinary acceptance depends on surviving prospective validation and peer review. The framework has, at minimum, earned the right to be tested seriously.

---

References

McKern, K.F. (2025–2026). Complex Adaptive Humans newsletter series. LinkedIn.

Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics: An Introduction. Springer-Verlag.

Kauffman, S. (1993). The Origins of Order. Oxford University Press.

Scheffer, M. et al. (2009). "Early-warning signals for critical transitions." Nature, 461, 53–59.

Bar-Yam, Y. (2003). Dynamics of Complex Systems. Westview Press.

Holland, J.H. (1995). Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Addison-Wesley.

West, G.B. (2017). Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies. Penguin Press.

Turchin, P. (2003). Historical Dynamics: Why States Rise and Fall. Princeton University Press.

Hudson, M. (2018). ...and forgive them their debts. ISLET-Verlag.

---

Correspondence: Kari Freyr McKern, Complex Adaptive Humans Data and analysis code available on request.