Scaling up and scaling out: Consilience and the evolution of more nurturing societies
Scaling up and scaling out: Consilience and the evolution of more nurturing societies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101893
复制
发表时间：
2020-11-01
影响因子：
12.8
通讯作者：
Embry, Dennis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Biglan, Anthony;Johansson, Magnus;Embry, Dennis
本文认为，人文科学中的不同学科在确定人类繁荣所需的条件以及促进福祉所需的计划、政策和实践方面已趋于一致。为了推广这一观点，我们建议将这种趋同有益地称为“养育协同”。我们回顾了来自进化生物学、发展心理学、临床心理学、社会心理学以及公共卫生和预防科学的证据，这些证据表明，出于进化的原因，强制环境会促使一种“快速”的生活策略，这种策略倾向于有限的自我调节、即时满足和早育。然而，通过以下计划、实践和政策可以防止这种发展轨迹：(a) 尽量减少有害的社会和生物条件；(b) 限制问题行为的机会和影响；(c) 大力强化亲社会行为；(d) 促进心理灵活性。对这些事实的认识促使人们对基于证据的干预措施的采用、实施和维持进行研究。要充分实现这种协同的成果，有必要对社会的各个部门进行改革。我们回顾了证据，表明自由市场倡导者宣扬这样一种观点，即如果个人仅仅追求自身的经济福祉，那么这将使每个人受益，并追溯了这种观点如何导致商业、医疗保健、教育、刑事司法和政府采取了使一小部分人受益但却伤害了大多数人的做法。我们认为，改革社会每个部门的第一步将是提升确保每个人福祉的价值。第二步将是创造一些偶然情况，以选择有益的做法并尽量减少有害的做法。
This paper argues that diverse disciplines within the human sciences have converged in identifying the conditions that human beings need to thrive and the programs, policies, and practices that are needed to foster wellbeing. In the interest of promoting this view, we suggest that this convergence might usefully be labeled "The Nurture Consilience." We review evidence from evolutionary biology, developmental, clinical, and social psychology, as well as public health and prevention science indicating that, for evolutionary reasons, coercive environments promote a "fast" life strategy that favors limited self-regulation, immediate gratification, and early childbearing. However, this trajectory can be prevented through programs, practices, and policies that (a) minimize toxic social and biological conditions, (b) limit opportunities and influences for problem behavior, (c) richly reinforce prosocial behavior, and (d) promote psychological flexibility. The recognition of these facts has prompted research on the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of evidence-based interventions. To fully realize the fruits of this consilience, it is necessary to reform every sector of society. We review evidence that free-market advocacy has promoted the view that if individuals simply pursue their own economic well-being it will benefit everyone, and trace how that view led business, health care, education, criminal justice, and government to adopt practices that have benefited a small segment of the population but harmed the majority. We argue that the first step in reforming each sector of society would be to promote the value of ensuring everyone's well-being. The second step will be to create contingencies that select beneficial practices and minimizes harmful ones.