In this final discussion, it was striking how different the perspectives were between evolutionary science and contextual behavioral science, even though both were tasked with the same general topic. Both offered excellent insights and both were evolutionary, and yet were very different. This means that a lot of work is required to integrate them with each other. Another observation is that contextual behavioral science is oriented toward the need to change. It could well be the case that ninety percent of individuals function just fine; their personalities and learning mechanisms got them to a good place—so we don’t think much about them! We think about the minority of people who are not functioning well. In that context, inflexibility is bad by definition and the need to change is good. That’s the main space within which contextual behavioral scientists operate. A second observation, and kickoff for more discussion, is that contextual behavioral scientists, in their treatment both of Skinnerian processes and of the special effects of language—more or less assume a universal human nature and don’t say much about personality. This is something that can be studied in nonhuman species. Once we realize that nonhuman species have profound individual differences, we can ask what it means for their learning processes. Presumably, all personalities are capable of learning, but perhaps in different ways that we should be taking into account if we’re going to accomplish change. To what extent do contextual behavioral scientists actually take this into account when working with people? Maybe implicitly there’s an understanding that people are different in ways that are not likely to change (their inflexibility), which can inform how they can be helped to change (their flexibility).