Chapter 5 looks at talent development and human excellence in a broader social-historical conditions and changes. The flourishing of particular forms of excellence in a given historical period or culture is always distinct, due to both cultural values and priorities as well as societal changes in social structure, leisure, and conditions of education. If human excellence reflects high-level self-organized individuality, then sociocultural contexts matter; ECT supports the notion of personal agency in changing the world and changing history, not by traits and genes, notwithstanding their meaningful role, but by cultural evolution that leverages characteristic and maximal adaptation with its niche construction and infrastructure-building to achieve the prosperity and vitality of its members. However, sociocultural conditions (including available technology) also significantly constrain individual strivings as well as how far individuals can go. The Needham Puzzle on the birth of modern science (why it occurred in the West, not China) is discussed, and a comparison is made of Da Vinci and Wang Yangming to demonstrate that any creative act is a sociocultural act, which can change history, yet is constrained by one’s times.

Chapter 2 addresses the question of what develops; the main argument of ECT is that most talent domains as defined by culture are not genetically programmed or preordained; however, most human accomplishments or excellence we know of are traceable to our ancient, even prehistorical roots when Homo sapiens still lived a hunting-and-gathering life. Therefore, any talent we are familiar with can be seen as a new machine made of “old parts” ever-present in prehistorical times and everyday life, a set of bioecological effectivities that have a long history of serving the surviving-thriving function in human ecology, only gradually to be harnessed and further refined through enculturation and institutionalized education and training, supported by cultural niche construction and infrastructure. Here lies a critical distinction between typical development in an expectant cultural environment and optimal development in a highly enriched one, potentially resulting in social disparities. Along the way, evidence of developmental diversity and divergent pathways suggests spontaneous self-organization of bioecological aptitudes and dispositions in adapting to affordances and challenges presented in a sociocultural environment, laying the foundation the growing person–object or person–world relationships.