CHRIST AND EVOLUTION: A DRAMA OF WISDOM?1

Abstract This paper argues that a genuine engagement of Christianity with evolution needs to include a discussion of Christology. Further, it develops a particular approach to Christology through a theo‐dramatic account of incarnation. The somewhat static post‐Chalcedon theological categories of divine and human natures are hard to square with contemporary evolutionary accounts of human origins. Once the divine Logos is portrayed in the active categories of Wisdom it becomes easier to envisage divine and creaturely wisdom coexisting in the person of Christ. I argue, in particular, that a focus on God's agency through a modified version of Hans Urs von Balthasar's account of theo‐drama invites participation and affirms human agency in a way that grand narratives do not. More particularly, drawing on examples from hominid evolution, contemporary discussion of paleontology and cooperative evolutionary theories, I suggest that the most convincing accounts of evolutionary biology fit into this theo‐dramatic account more readily than alternatives. As such, in the spirit of Robert Boyle, this paper deliberately blurs the categories of revealed and natural theology by arguing that we can make sense of the former through concentration on the latter.     

社会距离与合作指数对不同年龄青少年合作行为影响的差异

本研究采用重复囚徒困境实验范式,考察了社会距离和合作指数对不同年龄青少年（初中生、高中生和大学生,且每个年龄段的被试数为40名）在博弈决策中的合作行为的影响。结果发现：（1）随着年龄的增加,青少年合作行为的总体趋势表现为下降;（2）社会距离对大学生的合作行为的正向作用显著,而中学生的合作行为却不受其影响;（3）个体合作率会受到合作指数的促进作用,但这种促进作用在大学生中表现的更为显著。即随年龄增长,个体会更少的采取合作行为,并且个体是否采取合作在更大程度上基于当前博弈中的收支情况和与博弈对象之间的社会距离。     

合作与竞争人格倾向测量

该研究从人格的角度,采取定性与定量两种分析手段,对合作与竞争人格倾向进行了深入探讨,并编制了测量个体合作与竞争人格倾向的量表。研究者首先在深度访谈的基础上,编制合作与竞争人格倾向测量量表并进行指标验证。探索性因素分析发现,合作与竞争倾向是两个独立的维度,并分别包含三个子因子,构成合作与竞争倾向的二维度三因子模型。研究者随后对模型的验证性分析以及多重效度检验,结果显示量表的信效度与结构模型的拟合指标均达到可接受的标准     

ON SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND OTHER CORPORATE MYTHS

Although the doctrine of “survival of the fittest” is central to the Modern paradigm, it is not, as most Modernists would claim, the unvarnished truth. Indeed if we begin to think of the marketplace as a model of dynamic complexity then the logic of cooperation is inescapable. The point is that if business leaders refuse to accept that cooperation is a defining principle, not merely an abstract altruistic ideal but an essential strategy for the sustainable, long-term success of the businesses they are building, then they will continue to undermine their own best interests in the name of competitive dominance.     

Fast acquisition of cooperation and trust: A two-stage view of trusting behavior

Trustful behavior was defined in terms of the consecutive numbers of matching-to-sample problems worth money that each subject worked during sessions that ended in an equitable distribution. Two stages of acquisition are inherent in this definition; the first stage requires acquisition of an equitable method of distributing reinforcers (cooperation) to show that the within-session deviations (trust) from equity that develop during the second stage are temporary and are not part of an inequitable method of distributing reinforcers. Previous research has indicated that a contingency to trust is necessary to override the aversiveness of the inequity inherent in trusting and to produce consistent and maximal trust (half of the problems worked consecutively by each subject). The present experiment examined such a contingency. The trust contingency was an increased requirement for changing the direction of problem allocation. Only the subject who had been allocated a problem could change that allocation, by pulling a lever 45 or more times. On the other hand, no separate responses were required to allow the person who worked the last problem to also work the next one (passive trust). Hence, giving a problem was the only way to increase the distribution of problems to the other person and hence prevent oneself from receiving all of the reinforcers. All eight pairs of subjects cooperated from the outset. Trusting behavior developed for all four pairs exposed to the contingency to trust and expanded to maximal levels by the second session for three of the four pairs.     

自我惩罚：影响因素、模型与展望

自我惩罚是个体在违反社会规范后,自愿使自己承受伤害或蒙受损失的行为。自我惩罚会受到负性情绪、补救机会、代偿机会和性别的影响。情绪模型和互惠模型分别从情绪和互惠的角度阐述了自我惩罚的认知机制。根据近期的研究结果,可以推测自我惩罚与前扣带回、脑岛、右外侧眶额叶皮层、背内侧前额叶皮层、伏隔核、腹内侧前额叶皮层有关。未来值得研究的方向有：进一步确认自我惩罚涉及的情绪成分、为互惠模型收集更多实验证据、探究自我惩罚对集体合作的影响以及开展跨文化研究。