1 慈悲：定义与进化根源

同情心：定义与进化根源

在21世纪的头几十年里，同情心和自我同情越来越被研究并应用于心理治疗中作为一个活跃的、有实证支持的过程变量。考虑到同情心至少在2600年的时间里一直是情感疗愈冥想实践的核心，这可能并不令人惊讶。释迦牟尼或乔达摩佛陀教导说，培养同情心可以转化心灵，他的哲学后继者们自那时起一直在发展他的观察和洞见。此外，世界上大多数主要宗教都有特定的祈祷和意象练习，涉及将同情心作为情感安慰或救赎的源泉。就心理治疗而言，从卡尔·罗杰斯（1965）的工作开始，在过去的六十年里，人们一直认为共情是心理治疗的核心。自从罗杰斯的工作以来，不同的疗法探索了温暖和共情在心理治疗关系中的价值（吉尔伯特和利亚希，2007；格林伯格和派维奥，1997）。然而，同情心作为一种过程本身，直到最近才被视为心理治疗工作的核心焦点。

随着认知行为疗法（CBT）增加了对应用正念和接纳为基础的方法的重视，设计用来有意培养同情心的心理训练成为像ACT和FAP这样的情境行为疗法中的一个日益增长的趋势是有道理的。情境行为疗法本质上以一种与佛教心理学和同情科学共鸣的方式处理有机体与其环境之间的相互联系。此外，行为疗法中对同情心的强调是跨多种理论方法整合同情心导向方法和佛教影响趋势的一部分（格默、西格尔和富尔顿，2005）。基于同情心的有效治疗方法会将同情心的培养作为增强情绪调节、提高心理灵活性和促进福祉的关键过程。慈悲聚焦疗法为我们提供了一种快速发展的、基于证据的心理治疗方法，追求这些目标，并且与情境行为方法高度兼容。

同情心：定义与进化根源

同情心的定义

“同情心”这个词源自中古英语，通过盎格鲁-法语从晚期拉丁语的com-pati演变而来，意为“与……一同受苦或同情”。在当前的概念化中，同情心很少被呈现为单一的情绪或认知过程。同情心的定义通常表明，它由几个过程组成，涉及以下特征：

对痛苦的正念关注和觉察
对痛苦及其原因的理解和感受
保持对痛苦开放的态度，并有意愿或希望减轻它

此外，同情心的概念经常涉及到人类之间的相互联系。尽管临床心理学尚未采纳一个统一的同情心定义，许多作家、临床医生和研究人员已经参与到关于“同情心”含义的持续科学讨论中。

实际上，在心理治疗和研究中，几种特定的同情心定义被广泛使用，并且值得在建立ACT实践者可以在临床工作中应用的模型时加以考虑。麦凯和范宁（2000年）将同情心定义为一个多组件过程，包括接纳、理解和宽恕——这一定义源于他们关于自尊和自我批评的工作。他们提出，同情心可以是针对自我批评的整合性认知行为治疗的重要组成部分。值得注意的是，目前应用于心理学中的每一种同情心定义要么包含了一个处理自我批评的成分，要么是从与那些面临高水平自我批评和基于羞耻的困难的来访工作的过程中产生的（内夫，2003b；吉尔伯特和艾伦斯，2005年）。

自我同情方法中的定义

克里斯汀·内夫（2003a, 2003b）对自我同情的定义源自社会心理学和佛教传统，这可能是目前临床心理学中最普遍的自我同情模型。这主要是由于内夫的《自我同情量表》（2003a）在心理研究中被广泛用作测量同情心的主要工具。内夫的模型基于佛教心理学，包含三个基本的经验结构：正念、自我仁慈和共同人性的感觉。正念包括专注而灵活的觉察、接纳以及对苦难本质的清晰认识（一行禅师，1998；K. G. 威尔逊与杜弗雷恩，2009）。自我仁慈涉及以温暖和关怀的态度对待自己，而不是批评和严厉的评判。最后，共同人性是指认识到所有人在生活中都会面临痛苦和困扰。此外，共同人性的感觉还使人们能够洞察到自己的经历与全人类经历之间的联系。研究表明，较高的自我同情水平与较低的抑郁和焦虑水平相关（内夫，2003a；内夫、谢、德吉特拉特，2005；内夫、鲁德、柯克帕特里克，2007），即使控制了自我批评的影响后，这种关系仍然存在。内夫及其同事的研究还显示，自我同情与多种积极的心理维度之间存在正相关关系（内夫、鲁德等，2007），包括生活满意度、社会连结感（内夫、柯克帕特里克、鲁德，2007）和个人主动性及积极情绪（内夫、鲁德等，2007）。

ACT中的定义

根据ACT一致的术语，达尔、普伦布、斯图尔特和隆德格伦（2009）概述了同情心如何与心理灵活性——即ACT所基于的适应性人类功能统一模型——相关联。心理灵活性被定义为“作为一个有意识的人接触当下，完全地、不加不必要的防御——如其所是，而非其所言——并为了选择的价值观而持续或改变行为”（海斯、斯特罗斯哈尔、威尔逊，2012，第96-97页）。

根据达尔及其同事的模型，同情心涉及愿意体验困难的情绪；以正念观察我们的自我评价、痛苦和羞耻的想法，而不让它们主导我们的行为或心态；以自我仁慈和自我验证的方式更充分地参与生活追求；以及灵活地将视角转向一个更广阔、超越自我的感觉（海斯，2008b）。海斯及其同事（2012）特别将同情心和自我接纳与视角转换过程联系起来。根据ACT模型，人类意识到自身痛苦的能力也涉及到对他人的痛苦有所觉知。同样，当我们发展出减少受分类、评判性自我评价支配的能力时，我们可能更容易放下对他人的谴责和评判。从这个角度来看，随着我们培养同情心，我们也在发展心理灵活性的核心要素，而当我们变得更加灵活时，我们有机会在同情心中成长。

慈悲聚焦疗法中的定义

保罗·吉尔伯特（2005）借鉴了发展心理学、情感神经科学、佛教实用哲学和进化理论，发展了一种综合性的体验行为疗法，称为慈悲聚焦疗法（CFT）。吉尔伯特（2007）将慈悲描述为一个多方面的过程，它源于人类父母关怀和抚养孩子时所表现出的照顾者心态。因此，慈悲包括在温暖和关怀中创造成长和变化机会的能力所涉及的多种情感、认知和动机元素（吉尔伯特，2007）。

吉尔伯特（2009a）将慈悲的本质定义为“一种基本的善意，深刻地意识到自己和其他生物的痛苦，并伴有减轻这种痛苦的愿望和努力”（第13页）。这个定义包含了慈悲的两个核心维度。第一个维度被称为参与心理学，涉及对痛苦及其原因的敏感性和觉察。第二个维度被称为缓解心理学，包括减轻我们遇到的痛苦的动机和承诺采取实际步骤（吉尔伯特与乔登，2013）。

当我们从临床工作者的角度来看待这两个慈悲维度时，我们可以体会到实际行动中的慈悲感。想象一下，你正在与一个患有严重社交焦虑的年轻人进行第一次或第二次会谈。他是一个聪明且有爱心的学生，业余时间还自愿为州立大学的学生做辅导。他对自己的经历的描述表明，多年来同学的欺凌以及父亲的情感虐待激发了一个敌对的内心声音，无情地羞辱和批评他。当他想到与朋友聚会或参加音乐会时，他会预期他们会拒绝和评判他。甚至只是谈论社交聚会也会让他充满恐惧和绝望。当你花时间与这位来访在一起，用心倾听，看着他的眼睛，看到他经历的痛苦和羞耻时，你可能会越来越敏感于他的痛苦。听到他遭受的虐待，你可能会感到情绪上的触动，在他面前体验到共鸣的悲伤或愤怒。

随着你更多地接触来访并了解他的故事，你可能会感到有动力帮助他处理焦虑和痛苦。你可能会感到专业和个人的责任，帮助他在当下找到立足点，并迈向一个更有意义和快乐的生活。尽管采取这些步骤可能意味着来访会接触到巨大的焦虑，但你的慈悲动机不会是软弱无力的。你可能不会觉得有必要帮助他避免社交场合或蜷缩起来躲避。

在这种治疗关系中，你会感受到两种慈悲心理学的觉醒。你会感受到对你所遇到的痛苦的觉察和投入，同时也会感受到减轻这种痛苦的承诺和动机。你的慈悲心会活跃起来，并可能成为帮助来访在生活中做出重要改变的有力盟友。随着时间的推移，来访也可能学会激活自己的自我慈悲能力，有意地向自己传递温暖和支持，并在此过程中创造一系列新的有意义行动的可能性。

虽然吉尔伯特的CFT定义和慈悲理论模型在临床上的应用显而易见，但重要的是要认识到，CFT是从基础科学而非临床观察的基础上发展其慈悲概念化的。CFT的两种慈悲心理学——参与和缓解——将促成慈悲和情感体验的过程与高度进化的神经生理系统联系起来，特别是那些与社会行为相关的系统（吉尔伯特，2007）。

两种慈悲心理学与ACT

心理科学领域中正在形成的共识是，慈悲是一种复杂且多模态的人类行为组织，其在人类进化中有明确的先例，并根植于可遗传的反应模式，这些模式甚至在出生前就开始发展。然而，慈悲也涉及言语学习和特定的发展经历，这些经历发生在社会环境中。可以理解的是，在ACT（接受与承诺疗法）和情境认知行为疗法（CBT）中，对人类行为的预测和影响的精确性、深度和范围的关注，对于拓宽我们对慈悲的理解非常相关。支撑ACT的情境行为科学（CBS）方法邀请我们去审视人类慈悲中的言语学习以及情感、生物和遗传反应模式的精确动态，这些模式有助于我们对痛苦的认识和应对我们在世界上遇到的痛苦。在某些情况下，慈悲可以被视为一种可以通过心智训练培养的技能集，并作为情感疗愈过程的重要部分（戴维森，2003；吉尔伯特，2009b；卢茨、布雷夫钦斯基-刘易斯、约翰斯顿和戴维森，2008）。重要的是，慈悲涉及到在连接、亲密和密切关系中产生的情感的激活。我们将这些涉及共情、温暖和关怀的情感称为亲和情感。亲和情感网络的激活可以促进专注而灵活的注意力，并在通常限制行为库的刺激面前扩大可能的行为范围。实际上，研究越来越多地表明，慈悲可以促进我们在体验和应对痛苦的方式上的持久变化（古姆利、布拉赫勒、莱思韦特、麦克贝斯和吉尔伯特，2010；霍夫曼、格罗斯曼和海顿，2011）。

根据上述吉尔伯特的慈悲模型（2010），这里我们将简要地从接受与承诺过程的角度来概念化慈悲及其两个维度，并符合功能情境假设。

慈悲的参与心理学

这个维度涉及注意到、转向、关注并参与痛苦的能力。慈悲的参与包括几个方面，所有这些都促进了对痛苦的认识和敏感性。这些过程与经验接受而不是经验回避有关：以参与我们遇到的痛苦的动机转向那些难以承受的事物。就ACT的心理灵活性模型而言，强调接受、意愿和觉察的过程显然与CFT的参与心理学相关。

慈悲的缓解心理学

这个维度涉及在面对痛苦时，发展和维持智慧、技能和行为能力，采取有效且个人有意义的行动。这样的行动可能包括直接步骤来减轻痛苦及其原因，但也可能涉及发展在困难情绪面前保持慈悲接受的承诺。ACT中的拥有个人价值观并致力于体现这些价值观的过程与缓解心理学相关。

慈悲体验的疗愈品质

克里斯托弗·格默指出，关于慈悲体验的疗愈品质，“慈悲是一种心态，可以转化痛苦的体验，甚至使其变得有价值。当我们以慈悲的方式面对痛苦时，会有一种自由感——不抗拒、不收缩——以及与他人深刻连接的感觉——超越自我”（格默，2012，第93页）。当灵活的视角转换使我们有机会将慈悲转向内心时，正念觉察、慈爱和一种更广泛相互联系的自我感觉可能会变得更加明显（内夫，2011）。这些内容对于有经验的ACT实践者来说可能是相当熟悉的，并且在CBS框架下值得进一步扩展和探索。

随着我们对慈悲的功能性理解，我们可以发现慈悲与其他源自冥想实践的概念之间有着显著的连续性，这些概念有助于促进福祉。正念、接纳和慈悲常常被描述为相互关联的过程。例如，一些作者已经确定，正念训练涉及愿意接触当下，正如它所是的样子，并产生一种自慈和自我验证的新兴形式（卡巴特-津恩，2009）。其他作者则强调了正念和慈悲作为心理健康的互补核心过程，尽管它们保持独立，描述正念和慈悲为鸟的两翼——一个经典的佛教比喻（格默，2012）。虽然这些过程可以在不同程度上被视为相互关联或独立，但正念训练在数千年的冥想实践中一直被用作培养慈悲和健康心理视角的预备练习（蒂奇，2010；华莱士，2009）。尽管正念和其他健康的心理品质可能参与了慈悲体验，但我们建议慈悲是一个独特的过程，具有独特的进化轨迹、品质和功能应用。

临床案例：使用慈悲处理创伤史的来访

以下是一系列临床案例中的第一个，旨在说明如何在心理治疗中将慈悲作为一种积极的过程来使用。随着我们的进展，我们将澄清并通过具体技术和练习解释如何处理这些过程。虽然所有识别信息都已更改，但这些案例都是从实际会谈中提取的。当提到治疗师的情感反应时，这意在描述治疗师在房间内真实感受到的情绪体验。重要的是，将慈悲的关注带入心理治疗不仅仅是简单地验证情绪，而是进行共情的桥梁建设、情感连接和表达。心理治疗中的慈悲往往首先体现在来访与治疗师关系中的情感基调和意图上。

这个例子展示了在ACT疗程中治疗联盟中的慈悲激活。艾拉是一位三十五岁的女性，符合边缘型人格障碍的标准，她回到治疗中专门处理她的性创伤历史。她在六到十岁之间与她的哥哥一起被一位叔叔性侵。她对当时发生的事情感到非常羞耻，以至于在之前的治疗工作中从未透露过这一点。经过六个月密集的关系中心ACT工作后，她要求治疗师处理这个问题，他们已经在过去的三次会谈中进行了创伤工作。

治疗师：你真是太勇敢了，终于选择敞开心扉。来访:（向下看。）我觉得我不够勇敢。我把它藏了这么多年，我感到很惭愧。治疗师：在我看来，当你感觉如此之多的时候，你甚至更勇敢地去分享耻辱。你知道，我不认为发生在你身上的事有什么大不了的，让你感到惭愧的。我觉得这很可怕。想到这一点女孩，你被虐待让我如此伤心和愤怒。(治疗师明显地在情感上与来访者接触。) 来访:（低下头，保持沉默。）治疗师：现在是怎么回事？来访:如果你知道我有多没用，你也会恨我的。治疗师：我能理解你现在的感受。你已经我带着这个很久了。你能看出我对此有多难过吗，你要经历这些我很难过。来访:我知道你是好意，你的职责不是评判，但我真的我为自己的所作所为感到羞愧。治疗师：艾拉，你什么都没做。那是对你做的。来访:(开始哭泣。)情况比你想象的还要糟糕。每当艾拉谈起她的创伤时，她总是被强烈的羞耻感。她喜欢她的叔叔，甚至还记得她在某些虐待中感到了快乐。更糟糕的是，她回忆起一件事有一次，她把弟弟带到舅父那里去，结果他受到了虐待，然后告诉她哥哥不要告诉任何人。直到今天她都没有向她哥哥讲述了虐待，以及她的羞耻感和自我多年来，仇恨只增不减。像艾拉这样的案子，我们相信积极培养对自己和过去的同情心那些被虐待、迷失和困惑的孩子的行为是恢复的关键。治疗师：当你准备好分享更多的时候，我会在这里。我现在知道了童年时遭受性虐待是最令人困惑的事情之一吗。以及可能的羞辱经历。被人虐待，我们信任或爱会让事情变得更糟。我们怎么知道是谁信任吗?我们甚至可以相信我们在某种程度上是有责任的虐待或同谋。来访:（轻声哭泣。）我感到惭愧的是，我有时喜欢它——部分喜欢它。（哭得更厉害了。）天啊，我再也不敢看了你再一次。治疗师：我在这里等你。这是难以置信的痛苦和难以置信的勇气很高兴你能分享这个。我不知道你能不能相信，但是让我更加尊重你，直到你终于有了勇气摆脱虐待迫使你进入的孤立和分享这是我的。我很想尊重你的勇气，尊重你的底线。(变成悲伤的。) 来访:(轻声哭泣。)谢谢你！治疗师：如果你觉得可以的话，你愿意看着我的眼睛吗？告诉我你看到了什么？来访:我不知道我能不能。治疗师：如果你不喜欢也没关系。慢慢来。来访:（抬起头，看着治疗师泪眼婆娑的眼睛。）治疗师：你看到了什么？来访:我看到悲伤。治疗师：你看到评判了吗？来访:(停顿)。不。我知道你一直在我身边。治疗师：是的。我又想起了那个小女孩。我可以跟他说话吗？她吗? 来访:(犹豫)。是的。治疗师：我很难过你要经历这些。那一定很可怕和困惑。你一定感到很孤单。我想让你知道，你没有选择你所经历的，那就是这样完全不是你的错。来访:(哭)。我真惭愧。我一直很坏。治疗师：你处在一个不可能的境地，你需要有人来保护你。来访:(轻声哭泣。)是的。谢谢你！治疗师：我在这里等你。(停顿)。如果你能去和那个小女孩谈谈，你会怎么跟她说？来访:这些年来我一直很恨你。(哭)。但我知道不是你的错。你只是需要有人保护你，但没有人在那里。治疗师：我想让你知道，我能看到你难以置信的痛苦和羞耻，我希望你和那个小女孩一起，找到你的路，通过它。我觉得你们俩需要的不是更多的评判或者感到羞耻，但有些善良和同情。

进化、认知与行为：什么是最具人类特征的？

为了将慈悲体验置于人类进化、个体学习历史以及当下情境的背景中，我们首先探讨慈悲是如何进化的，以及它如何与我们所有人根本上的人性相关联。如果我们观察最简单的生物体，比如一个单细胞生物如变形虫，我们可以注意到它会远离潜在的有害刺激，如寒冷、热或触碰，并且也会朝向食物源移动。当然，变形虫并不像我们那样思考或做决定，但它仍然本能地通过朝向或远离潜在威胁和维持生命条件来回应这些刺激，区分厌恶和吸引的刺激。

随着生物体的进化和变得越来越复杂，它们能够以越来越复杂的方式回应环境中的遭遇，但这种基本的区分——即朝向维持生命的（吸引）刺激和远离潜在危险（厌恶刺激）——仍然是控制所有行为的根本变量。例如，考虑一只宠物狗。我们知道这只狗可以通过增加某些行为或减少其他行为来学会对环境变化做出反应。当它听到食物碗被填满的声音时，它会跑向厨房，这是一种受吸引控制的行为。而当它听到主人愤怒的声音时，它会跑出客厅，这是一种受厌恶控制的行为。我们人类同样会在厌恶或吸引控制下行为，但由于我们具有独特的象征性思维能力和复杂的情感反应能力，辨别对我们有害或有益的事物可以变得极其复杂。

从情境行为科学（CBS）的角度来看，“行为”一词用来代表一个人可能做的任何事情（Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991; Törneke, 2010）。从白日梦到跑步，从消化到感到悲伤，从看到到爱，从思考到感知，整个人类行动和体验的范围都被视为行为的一部分。这符合B. F. 斯金纳的观点（1974），并且特别适用于科学方法，因为它帮助我们将我们的整个体验——无论是公共的（通过五感）还是私人的（通过心灵的眼睛或内在感觉）——视为本质上没有区别。在心理学科学方面，这是有用的，因为预测和影响行为的基本规则已经在实验心理学中得到了很好的研究，许多这些规则既适用于心理行为也适用于物理行为（Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001）。这也帮助克服了二元论立场中固有的哲学难题，即一种类型的事物（精神的东西）如何能对本质上不同的事物（物质）施加控制影响。

进化融合

研究表明，人类倾向于将象征性的心理事件当作外部世界中的实际事件来回应（Dymond, Schlund, Roche, & Whelan, 2013; Ruiz, 2010），这一现象在ACT中被称为融合（Hayes et al., 1999）。当不愉快的事情被想起时，它们可能会使我们处于厌恶控制之下，而愉快的事情则可能导致吸引控制。例如，考虑一个患有广泛性焦虑障碍数十年的人，他经常担心自己的财务状况。他可能会不断担心自己会变得一贫如洗，失去所有储蓄，甚至可能无家可归。当他脑海中产生一系列担忧和想象的情景时，这些心理事件很可能会对他的行为产生影响。他在做财务决策时可能会非常厌恶风险，因此错过重要的机会。此外，他可能不愿在工作场所中表达自己，生活在害怕冒犯上司或同事的恐惧中。日复一日，他像对待真实情况一样回应自己的担忧，他的生活范围变得越来越小，活动范围也日益受限。因此，大约两百万年前，随着复杂的人类认知的进化出现，人类行为开始受到我们的思想、情感以及外部环境的影响，这既有益处也有问题。它的好处在于，它允许我们在脑海中构建世界的模型并在现实世界中进行测试，从而引发技术爆炸，极大地改善了我们的生存前景。但这也可能带来一些问题。

通过融合，我们的行为可能会受到心理事件如此强烈的影响，以至于有时我们更多地受内心表征而非外界实际因素的控制（Strosahl, Hayes, Wilson, & Gifford, 2004）。例如，如果一个女人对聚会的心理表征是一群会在背后嘲笑她并排斥她的评判性客人，她可能会感到焦虑。此外，她可能会试图避免参加聚会，并通过交感神经系统体验到焦虑引起的生理症状，她的脑海中可能会产生诸如“你无法应付聚会”和“你是社交失败者”之类的削弱性想法。这些想法可能会变得如此突出，即使她参加了聚会并且所有客人都很友好，她仍然可能会因为心理事件对她生物学和行为的影响而感到恐惧、自我批评，并且注意力偏向负面（Barlow, 2002; Greene et al., 2008）。

当我们处于心理事件的厌恶控制之下时，我们往往会试图在心理上抑制或避免这些事件。我们自然想要逃避那些不愉快的感觉、图像和想法，因为在外部世界中，逃避危险事物通常是一个好策略。这里的问题是，我们越是试图推开一个不想要的想法或感觉，它就越容易出现，并且越可能主导我们的体验并控制我们的行为。有多少人曾在夜晚躺在床上试图不去想第二天工作或学校的问题？实验和临床研究反复验证了压抑思想或情绪会导致它们更频繁地出现，而试图避免体验往往是许多心理痛苦的驱动因素（Ruiz, 2010; Wenzlaff & Wegner, 2000）。在令人痛苦的心理事件及其随后的身体情绪反应的支配下，我们陷入了一种厌恶控制下的回避和控制尝试，这可能会让我们陷入无尽的痛苦循环和深深的困境之中。

融合涉及心理事件对我们行为的影响——不仅包括言语行为，还包括生理反应，包括在非言语层面表达或体验的情绪反应。正如前面提到的，作为人类所经历的许多事情，包括许多行为，与其他动物共享。从进化的角度来看，这些反应模式比人类还要古老。例如，领地行为、性行为、亲和反应以及恐惧或厌恶等情绪在前人类动物中都有进化先驱。同样，情绪体验的要素位于不依赖于认知的身体反应中。

虽然对情绪的单一定义难以捉摸，但可以将情绪视为引导生物适应环境需求的进化涌现的心理生理现象（Levenson, 1994）；提供保护生物福祉的固有方式（Panksepp, 1994）；并且具有遗传性和普遍性，使我们当前的反应受到祖先过去的影响（Ekman, 1992, 1994; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990）。来自各种动物尤其是灵长类动物的大量证据支持这样的观点，即初级形式的关爱行为、利他主义和其他类型的善良行为是广泛存在的（de Waal, 2009）。毫无疑问，那些实践慈悲、群体保护、食物分享以及照顾幼小或病弱个体的祖先人类比那些对彼此福利漠不关心的人更有可能生存下来（D. S. Wilson, 2007）。

进化、合作与慈悲

情境科学理论家，特别是史蒂文·C·海耶斯，正在探索理解人类言语行为的进化背景，并将他们对语言和认知的理解置于进化的框架中（Hayes & Long, 2013; D. S. Wilson, Hayes, Biglan, & Embry, 2012）。海耶斯和朗（2013）最近回顾了B. F. 斯金纳的观点，即“所有行为都是由于基因的作用，有些是直接的，有些则是通过基因在个体一生中产生的结构的变化来间接作用”（Skinner, 1974, p. 704）。海耶斯将CBS（情境行为科学）与进化科学结合起来，强调合作是我们主要的进化优势，也是人类认知和慈悲的进化先驱（Hayes & Long, 2013）。虽然我们的一些行为与我们的进化祖先共享，但至少有三个领域——认知、文化和合作——对于理解人类行为特别重要（Hayes & Long, 2013; D. S. Wilson et al., 2012）。如前所述，从基本层面来看，认知涉及象征性思维——对我们周围世界的表征，可以指导我们的行动（Hayes & Long, 2013; Von Eckardt, 1995）。从进化的角度来看，文化代表了我们跨代和人群之间交流和传递学习成果的能力。这样，通过我们的进化历史所获得的认知和反应模式并不依赖于单一世代或单一群体的生存。我们的集体学习可以传递到我们物种的未来——这种传递对社会环境以及基因型潜力如何在系统发育和个人层面上表达具有巨大影响（Hayes & Long, 2013）。

关于作为我们物种特征的人类行为的第三个要素——合作，这代表了我们能够相互协作以实现特定目标的能力。人类的合作水平和一致性是其他动物所未知的，因此我们通过沟通和合作的能力获得了进化优势。进化理论家开始假设，合作行为可能通过群体间选择的有效性导致了我们物种与其他灵长类动物的区别（Hayes & Long, 2013; Nowak & Highfield, 2011）。更有效的早期人类群体，通过合作和以真社会方式交流，可能比其他灵长类动物群体更有可能繁荣发展，因为个体选择可能导致这些群体的集体适应效率较低。为了更好地理解这一点，想象一群早期非人类灵长类动物与最早的人类竞争资源。我们的远古祖先拥有比其他灵长类动物更精确和微妙的方式进行合作和交流的优势，使他们能够使用和分享工具知识，共同努力完成目标，指出潜在的危险源，并在个体受伤或康复时互相照顾。在适应原则、变异和群体选择的影响下，这样的群体可能会发展出更灵活地与环境互动的优越方式，促进集体的生存和繁荣。合作的重大好处会合乎逻辑地促进人类言语交流能力和新兴象征性或代表性思维的选择和发展。

一些动物确实表现出对他人意图感知并作出反应的能力，包括猿类甚至乌鸦（Call & Tomasello, 1999; Clayton et al., 2007），这些物种可能在某种程度上集合它们的行为资源以求生存。然而，似乎只有人类能够以复杂合作的方式响应和使用非言语手势、面部表情和话语，从而促进情感信息的传递（Call & Tomasello, 1999; Tomasello, Call, & Gluckman, 1997）。事实上，人类可能是地球上唯一真正具备真社会性和合作性的脊椎动物（Foster & Ratnieks, 2005; Hayes & Long, 2013）。

合作的优势可能在人类语言的选择和进化出现中发挥了作用。反过来，人类语言的发展可能促进了言语社区的发展，该社区能够选择性地强化人类认知的发展（Hayes & Long, 2013; Hayes et al., 2012）。据我们所知，只有人类能够作为说话者和听众表达自己，并体验自己在特定时空点上的特定身份。这样，基因固有的动机和情绪的体现进化智能与人类象征性表征能力相互作用，创造了高度依赖于社会背景、言语学习和内部认知网络细化的人类行为范围。基于此，人类体验自我，而构建独立自我认同的人类行为也随之出现。

人类的自我构建、视角转换及情感体验

正如本书中将要探讨的，人类在与他人关系中构建自我的能力、换位思考的能力以及在亲和性情感体验中感受到安抚和平静的进化倾向，都是我们慈悲之心的种子。所有这些品质都源于我们在合作社会背景下的独特体验——“我-你”的感觉，以及更为重要的“我们”的感觉。有趣的是，言语过程也依赖于稳定的社会背景。这种背景是言语社区合作功能的结果，它提供了基础，使儿童能够逐渐形成并关联自己的经验，相对于“你-那里-那时”来理解“我-这里-现在”的存在（Hayes, 1984）。因此，我们的深层自我意识和新兴的精神体验作为言语行为的功能而出现，并通过言语社区得以中介（Hayes, 1984）。这样，我们对自己个体视角的感觉涉及想象通过他人视角看待世界的能力，这进一步加强了慈悲行为，这次是以言语为媒介。

我们认为，这种对慈悲的进化背景理解可以帮助解释幸福感、慈悲与心理灵活性之间的联系。如前所述，Gilbert (2009a) 强调，慈悲是一种从人类行为系统中涉及依恋和亲和力的人类进化能力，这一论点得到了实证研究的支持。为了在世界上获得一个安全的基础，寻求看护者的亲近和安慰是一种哺乳动物行为，早于人类进行言语回应和基于他人关系产生自我意识的能力，也早于正念训练中产生的元意识和观察能力。我们在认知和言语行为上的进化优势导致了我们特别的人类自我意识质量，即意识到我们的意识（即正念），以及基于抽象思维和想象力的行为能力，包括我们对所见证的痛苦敏感和被感动的能力。根据D. S. Wilson及其同事（2012）的观点，这种象征性思维的人类能力为我们提供了一个“继承系统”，其潜在的组合多样性类似于重组DNA。因此，我们的遗传和心理语言学进化使我们能够通过自我慈悲的经历得到安抚，并允许这种安抚经历和随之而来的勇气赋予我们更大的心理灵活性和在世界中运作的安全基础。

王（2005）假设，人类的慈悲是从一种进化决定的“物种保存”神经生理系统中产生的。这个系统被认为是在相对较近的进化时间框架内发展起来的，相比更古老的“自我保存”系统。这个“物种保存”系统“基于包容性的自我感，促进我们对彼此相互联系的认识”（Wang, 2005, p. 75）。与其他一些动物相比，人类婴儿和儿童可能显得无助，因为他们需要早期生活中的大量照顾和保护。因此，特定的大脑结构和其他神经系统和内分泌系统的元素已经进化以促进养育行为，保护和照顾他人。这种进化进程的基本例子可以通过对比爬行动物和两栖动物与哺乳动物的育儿行为来观察。前者甚至缺乏最基本的孩子照顾行为，而哺乳动物则明显表现出广泛的照顾行为。

在进化阶梯上更高级的位置，王对相关文献的回顾表明，人类的前额叶皮层、扣带回皮层和腹侧迷走复合体参与了这种“物种保存”系统的激活（Wang, 2005）。这些结构都在健康依恋纽带和自我慈悲的发展中发挥作用。处理威胁的个体适应性和群体适应性行为系统的开发可以被视为多层次选择理论的一个例子（D. S. Wilson, 2008）；它反映了我们的进化历史如何以连接我们彼此的方式告知我们的言语关系网络，同时也告知了我们作为一个新兴物种在生命流动中的位置。这种进化的视角本质上具有情境性，并反映了在自我慈悲的科学发展中多学科理论整合的潜在领域。

本章知识点阐述

知识点阐述

本文段落介绍了同情心及其在心理治疗中的应用，并探讨了其定义和进化根源。以下是几个关键知识点：

同情心的历史背景：
- 同情心的概念在佛教和其他主要宗教中有着悠久的历史，至少已有2600年的历史。
- 释迦牟尼佛教导说，培养同情心可以转化心灵，这一观点在其后的哲学发展中得到了进一步的发展。
同情心在心理治疗中的重要性：
- 自卡尔·罗杰斯（1965）的工作以来，共情被认为是心理治疗的核心要素。
- 不同的疗法都探索了温暖和共情在治疗关系中的价值，但同情心作为一个独立的过程变量，直到最近才被广泛认可。
认知行为疗法（CBT）的发展：
- CBT逐渐增加了对正念和接纳为基础的方法的重视，这为同情心的培养提供了新的视角。
- 情境行为疗法如ACT和FAP，通过关注个体与其环境之间的相互联系，与佛教心理学和同情科学产生了共鸣。
同情心导向方法的整合：
- 行为疗法中对同情心的强调反映了跨多种理论方法整合同情心导向方法和佛教影响的趋势。
- 这种整合有助于开发更全面的心理治疗方法，结合了西方科学和东方智慧。
慈悲聚焦疗法（CFT）：
- CFT是一种快速发展的、基于证据的心理治疗方法，旨在通过培养同情心来增强情绪调节、提高心理灵活性和促进福祉。
- CFT与情境行为方法高度兼容，为心理治疗提供了新的工具和视角。

综上所述，本文不仅介绍了同情心的历史背景和在心理治疗中的应用，还探讨了其在现代心理治疗中的重要性和发展趋势。通过理解和整合不同文化背景和理论方法的优势，治疗师可以在实践中更好地帮助来访减轻痛苦并促进其福祉。此外，文章强调了同情心作为一种过程变量在心理治疗中的核心地位，并展示了其在现代心理治疗中的广泛应用前景。

知识点阐述

本文段落介绍了同情心及其在心理治疗中的应用，并探讨了其定义和进化根源。以下是几个关键知识点：

同情心的历史背景：
- 同情心的概念在佛教和其他主要宗教中有着悠久的历史，至少已有2600年的历史。
- 释迦牟尼佛教导说，培养同情心可以转化心灵，这一观点在其后的哲学发展中得到了进一步的发展。
同情心在心理治疗中的重要性：
- 自卡尔·罗杰斯（1965）的工作以来，共情被认为是心理治疗的核心要素。
- 不同的疗法都探索了温暖和共情在治疗关系中的价值，但同情心作为一个独立的过程变量，直到最近才被广泛认可。
认知行为疗法（CBT）的发展：
- CBT逐渐增加了对正念和接纳为基础的方法的重视，这为同情心的培养提供了新的视角。
- 情境行为疗法如ACT和FAP，通过关注个体与其环境之间的相互联系，与佛教心理学和同情科学产生了共鸣。
同情心导向方法的整合：
- 行为疗法中对同情心的强调反映了跨多种理论方法整合同情心导向方法和佛教影响的趋势。
- 这种整合有助于开发更全面的心理治疗方法，结合了西方科学和东方智慧。
慈悲聚焦疗法（CFT）：
- CFT是一种快速发展的、基于证据的心理治疗方法，旨在通过培养同情心来增强情绪调节、提高心理灵活性和促进福祉。
- CFT与情境行为方法高度兼容，为心理治疗提供了新的工具和视角。

知识点阐述

本文段落介绍了同情心的定义及其在心理治疗中的应用。以下是几个关键知识点：

同情心的词源：
- “同情心”一词源自中古英语，通过盎格鲁-法语从晚期拉丁语的com-pati演变而来，意为“与……一同受苦或同情”。
同情心的多维度性质：
- 同情心通常不是一个单一的情绪或认知过程，而是由多个过程组成的复合体。
- 这些过程包括对痛苦的正念关注和觉察、对痛苦及其原因的理解和感受，以及保持对痛苦开放的态度并有意愿或希望减轻它。
人类之间的相互联系：
- 同情心的概念强调了人类之间的相互联系，这在临床心理学中是一个重要的方面。
- 尽管尚无统一的定义，但许多学者和研究人员已经参与到了关于同情心含义的持续讨论中。
特定的同情心定义：
- 在心理治疗和研究中，几种特定的同情心定义被广泛使用。例如，麦凯和范宁（2000年）将同情心定义为一个多组件过程，包括接纳、理解和宽恕。
- 这种定义特别适用于处理自我批评的情况，提出了同情心可以是整合性认知行为治疗的重要组成部分。
自我批评与同情心的关系：
- 当前应用于心理学中的同情心定义往往涉及处理自我批评的成分，或者是在与那些面临高水平自我批评和基于羞耻的困难的来访工作过程中产生的。
- 这表明同情心在帮助个体应对自我批评和羞耻感方面具有重要作用。

综上所述，本文不仅介绍了同情心的定义及其多维度性质，还探讨了其在心理治疗中的应用。通过理解同情心的这些特征，治疗师可以更好地在临床实践中应用同情心，帮助来访减轻痛苦并促进其情感健康。此外，文章强调了同情心在处理自我批评和羞耻感方面的特殊作用，为心理治疗提供了新的视角和工具。

知识点阐述

本文段落介绍了自我同情和同情心在不同方法中的定义，并探讨了它们在心理治疗中的应用。以下是几个关键知识点：

克里斯汀·内夫的自我同情定义：
- 内夫的自我同情模型结合了社会心理学和佛教传统的观点，强调正念、自我仁慈和共同人性。
- 正念涉及专注而灵活的觉察和接纳，自我仁慈是以温暖和关怀的态度对待自己，共同人性则指认识到所有人都会经历痛苦。
自我同情与心理健康的关系：
- 较高的自我同情水平与较低的抑郁和焦虑水平相关，即使在控制了自我批评的影响后，这种关系仍然存在。
- 自我同情还与多种积极的心理维度（如生活满意度、社会连结感和个人主动性）呈正相关。
ACT中的同情心定义：
- 在ACT中，同情心与心理灵活性密切相关，后者是ACT的核心概念之一。
- 心理灵活性被定义为无防御地接触当下，并为了选择的价值观而持续或改变行为。
- 同情心涉及愿意体验困难的情绪、正念观察自我评价、以自我仁慈和自我验证的方式参与生活，以及灵活地转变视角。
同情心与心理灵活性的关系：
- 根据ACT模型，同情心的发展有助于增强心理灵活性。
- 当我们变得更有心理灵活性时，我们也有机会在同情心中成长。
- 这种关系表明，同情心不仅是一种情感状态，也是一种可以培养和发展的技能，它能够促进个体的心理健康和福祉。

综上所述，本文不仅介绍了自我同情和同情心的不同定义，还探讨了它们在心理治疗中的应用。通过理解这些概念及其相互关系，治疗师可以在临床实践中更好地应用同情心，帮助来访减轻痛苦并促进其情感健康。此外，文章强调了同情心在提高心理灵活性方面的作用，为心理治疗提供了新的视角和工具。

知识点阐述

本文段落介绍了慈悲聚焦疗法（CFT）中慈悲的定义及其在心理治疗中的应用。以下是几个关键知识点：

慈悲聚焦疗法的起源：
- 保罗·吉尔伯特结合了发展心理学、情感神经科学、佛教实用哲学和进化理论，开发了慈悲聚焦疗法。
- 慈悲被描述为一个多方面的过程，源自人类的照顾者心态，包含情感、认知和动机元素。
慈悲的定义：
- 吉尔伯特将慈悲定义为“一种基本的善意，深刻地意识到自己和其他生物的痛苦，并伴有减轻这种痛苦的愿望和努力”。
- 慈悲包含两个核心维度：参与心理学和缓解心理学。
参与心理学：
- 参与心理学涉及对痛苦及其原因的敏感性和觉察。
- 作为治疗师，这意味着能够深刻地感受到来访的痛苦，并对其产生共鸣。
缓解心理学：
- 缓解心理学包括减轻痛苦的动机和承诺采取实际步骤。
- 这要求治疗师不仅同情来访的痛苦，还要有意愿和决心去帮助他们减轻痛苦。
慈悲在治疗中的应用：
- 在治疗实践中，治疗师通过倾听和理解来访的故事，感受到他们的痛苦，并产生帮助他们的动力。
- 慈悲不仅是一种情感状态，也是一种可以培养和发展的技能，有助于促进来访的成长和变化。
慈悲的心理学基础：
- CFT的慈悲概念化基于基础科学，而不是单纯的临床观察。
- 慈悲的过程与高度进化的神经生理系统相关联，特别是与社会行为有关的系统。

综上所述，本文不仅介绍了慈悲聚焦疗法中慈悲的定义及其多维度性质，还探讨了其在心理治疗中的应用。通过理解和实践这些慈悲的概念，治疗师可以在临床工作中更好地帮助来访减轻痛苦并促进其情感健康。此外，文章强调了慈悲在提高治疗效果方面的重要作用，为心理治疗提供了新的视角和工具。

知识点阐述

本文段落介绍了两种慈悲心理学的概念及其在ACT（接受与承诺疗法）中的应用。以下是几个关键知识点：

慈悲的多模态性质：
- 慈悲是一种复杂的多模态行为组织，它不仅基于人类进化的遗传反应模式，还涉及言语学习和社会环境中的特定发展经历。
- 这种多模态性质使得慈悲既是一个生物学现象，也是一个社会文化现象。
慈悲与ACT的关系：
- ACT和情境认知行为疗法（CBT）通过精确预测和影响人类行为，有助于更深入地理解慈悲。
- 情境行为科学（CBS）的方法鼓励我们探索慈悲中的言语学习和情感、生物及遗传反应模式的精确动态。
慈悲作为一种可培养的技能：
- 慈悲可以通过心智训练培养，并在情感疗愈过程中发挥重要作用。
- 慈悲涉及在亲密关系中产生的情感，如共情、温暖和关怀，这些被称为亲和情感。
亲和情感的作用：
- 亲和情感的激活可以促进专注而灵活的注意力，并在面对通常会限制行为选择的刺激时扩大可能的行为范围。
- 研究表明，慈悲可以促进我们在体验和应对痛苦方式上的持久变化。
慈悲的参与心理学：
- 参与心理学涉及注意到、转向、关注并参与痛苦的能力。
- 这个维度与经验接受有关，即以积极的态度面对困难，而不是逃避。
慈悲的缓解心理学：
- 缓解心理学涉及在面对痛苦时，发展和维持智慧、技能和行为能力，采取有效且个人有意义的行动。
- 这包括直接减轻痛苦的行动，以及在困难情绪面前保持慈悲接受的承诺。

综上所述，本文不仅介绍了两种慈悲心理学的概念及其多维度性质，还探讨了它们在ACT中的应用。通过理解和实践这些慈悲的概念，治疗师可以在临床工作中更好地帮助来访减轻痛苦并促进其情感健康。此外，文章强调了慈悲在提高心理灵活性和促进持久变化方面的重要作用，为心理治疗提供了新的视角和工具。

知识点阐述

本文段落介绍了慈悲在心理治疗中的作用，并通过一个临床案例来说明如何在实际治疗中应用慈悲。以下是几个关键知识点：

慈悲的疗愈品质：
- 克里斯托弗·格默强调，慈悲能够转化痛苦的体验，甚至使其变得有价值。
- 当我们以慈悲的态度面对痛苦时，会感到一种自由感和与他人的深刻连接。
- 将慈悲转向内心时，正念觉察、慈爱和一种更广泛的相互联系的自我感觉会变得更加明显。
慈悲与正念的关系：
- 正念、接纳和慈悲常常被描述为相互关联的过程。
- 正念训练涉及愿意接触当下，正如它所是的样子，并产生一种自慈和自我验证的新兴形式。
- 正念和慈悲被认为是心理健康的互补核心过程，有时被比喻为鸟的两翼。
慈悲的独特性：
- 尽管正念和其他健康的心理品质可能参与了慈悲体验，但慈悲被认为是一个独特的过程，具有其独特的进化轨迹、品质和功能应用。
慈悲在心理治疗中的应用：
- 在心理治疗中，慈悲不仅仅是指情绪的验证，还包括共情的桥梁建设、情感连接和表达。
- 慈悲在治疗中的体现通常首先体现在来访与治疗师之间的关系情感基调和意图上。
临床案例：
- 通过一个具体的临床案例，展示了如何在ACT疗程中使用慈悲来处理来访的创伤历史。
- 案例中的来访艾拉因为性创伤而感到极大的羞耻，但在治疗师的帮助下，她开始面对并处理这一创伤。

综上所述，本文不仅介绍了慈悲在心理治疗中的疗愈品质及其与正念的关系，还通过一个具体的临床案例展示了慈悲在实际治疗中的应用。通过理解和实践这些慈悲的概念，治疗师可以在临床工作中更好地帮助来访减轻痛苦并促进其情感健康。此外，文章强调了慈悲在建立治疗关系和促进情感连接方面的重要作用，为心理治疗提供了新的视角和工具。

知识点阐述

本文段落介绍了进化、认知与行为的关系，并探讨了什么是人类特有的特征。以下是几个关键知识点：

进化中的行为基础：
- 即使是单细胞生物如变形虫，也能通过朝向或远离刺激来响应环境。
- 这种基本的区分——朝向维持生命的刺激和远离潜在危险——是所有生物行为的基础。
行为的复杂性：
- 随着生物体的进化，它们的行为变得更加复杂，但仍保留了基本的趋利避害机制。
- 人类由于具有象征性思维和复杂情感反应的能力，使得辨别有害或有益的事物变得极其复杂。
行为的广泛定义：
- 从情境行为科学（CBS）的角度来看，行为包括人类可能做的任何事情，无论是在外显的还是内隐的层面。
- 这种定义有助于将所有的体验视为统一的整体，避免了二元论带来的哲学难题。
行为科学的应用：
- 行为科学提供了预测和影响行为的基本规则，这些规则既适用于心理行为也适用于物理行为。
- 这种统一的方法有助于更全面地理解人类行为，并为心理治疗提供理论基础。

综上所述，本文不仅介绍了进化、认知与行为之间的关系，还探讨了人类特有的行为特征。通过理解和应用这些概念，研究者和临床工作者可以更好地理解人类行为的本质，并在实践中更有效地进行干预。此外，文章强调了行为科学在整合心理和物理行为方面的价值，为解决复杂的心理问题提供了新的视角和工具。

知识点阐述

本文段落介绍了融合的概念及其在人类行为中的作用，并探讨了情绪与进化的关系。以下是几个关键知识点：

融合现象：
- 人类倾向于将象征性的心理事件当作外部世界中的实际事件来回应，这种现象称为融合。
- 融合可能导致行为受到心理事件的强烈影响，从而限制了个体的行为范围。
厌恶控制与吸引控制：
- 不愉快的心理事件会使个体处于厌恶控制之下，而愉快的心理事件则可能导致吸引控制。
- 这种控制会影响个体的决策和行为，导致其错过机会或避免某些情境。
心理事件的影响：
- 心理事件不仅影响言语行为，还影响生理反应和情绪反应。
- 个体可能会试图抑制或避免不愉快的心理事件，但这往往适得其反，导致这些事件更加频繁地出现。
情绪的进化基础：
- 情绪被视为进化过程中出现的心理生理现象，有助于生物适应环境需求。
- 情绪具有遗传性和普遍性，反映了祖先的生存策略。
利他行为与生存：
- 初级形式的关爱行为、利他主义和其他类型的善良行为在多种动物中普遍存在。
- 实践慈悲和群体保护的祖先人类更有可能生存下来，这表明利他行为对物种生存的重要性。

综上所述，本文不仅介绍了融合现象及其对人类行为的影响，还探讨了情绪与进化的联系。通过理解和应用这些概念，研究者和临床工作者可以更好地理解人类行为的本质，并在实践中更有效地进行干预。此外，文章强调了情绪和利他行为在进化过程中的重要性，为解决复杂的心理问题提供了新的视角和工具。

知识点阐述

本文段落介绍了进化、合作与慈悲的概念，并探讨了这些概念如何解释人类行为的独特性。以下是几个关键知识点：

合作的进化优势：
- 合作被认为是人类的主要进化优势，它促进了人类认知和慈悲的发展。
- 人类的合作水平和一致性是其他动物所不具备的，这使得人类能够在复杂的社会环境中生存和繁荣。
认知、文化和合作的重要性：
- 认知、文化和合作是理解人类行为的三个关键领域。
- 认知涉及象征性思维，有助于指导行为；文化则指跨代和人群之间的知识传递。
- 合作使人类能够通过复杂的交流和协作实现共同目标，这是其他物种难以比拟的。
合作与语言的演化：
- 合作的优势可能促进了人类语言的进化，而语言的发展又进一步强化了认知和社会互动。
- 人类能够通过复杂的非言语和言语交流传递情感信息，这是其他动物无法做到的。
人类的独特性：
- 人类是唯一能够通过言语交流和象征性思维表达自己的物种。
- 人类的这种能力使其能够在特定的时间和空间中体验自我，并构建独特的自我认同。

综上所述，本文不仅介绍了进化、合作与慈悲的概念，还探讨了这些概念如何解释人类行为的独特性。通过理解和应用这些概念，研究者和临床工作者可以更好地理解人类行为的本质，并在实践中更有效地进行干预。此外，文章强调了合作和语言在人类进化中的重要作用，为解决复杂的心理问题提供了新的视角和工具。

知识点阐述

本文段落介绍了人类自我构建、换位思考及情感体验的概念，并探讨了这些概念如何与慈悲心相关联。以下是几个关键知识点：

自我构建与社会背景：
- 人类在与他人的关系中构建自我，这依赖于稳定的社会背景。
- 这种社会背景促进了儿童对“我-这里-现在”与“你-那里-那时”的理解和关联，从而形成自我意识。
换位思考与慈悲：
- 换位思考的能力加强了慈悲行为，因为人们能够通过他人视角看待世界。
- 这种能力通过言语交流得以强化，进一步促进了社会互动和慈悲行为。
慈悲的进化基础：
- 慈悲是一种进化的人类能力，源于人类行为系统中的依恋和亲和力。
- 人类的慈悲能力根植于哺乳动物的本能行为，如寻求亲近和安慰，但随着认知和言语能力的发展，变得更加复杂。
心理灵活性与安全感：
- 人类的认知和言语能力使我们能够通过自我慈悲的经验得到安抚。
- 这种安抚和随之而来的勇气增强了心理灵活性，并为我们在世界中的运作提供了安全基础。
神经生理系统与慈悲：
- 人类的“物种保存”神经生理系统促进了对他人的关爱和保护行为。
- 前额叶皮层、扣带回皮层和腹侧迷走复合体等大脑结构在健康依恋和自我慈悲的发展中起着重要作用。

综上所述，本文不仅介绍了人类自我构建、换位思考及情感体验的概念，还探讨了这些概念如何与慈悲心相关联。通过理解和应用这些概念，研究者和临床工作者可以更好地理解人类行为的本质，并在实践中更有效地进行干预。此外，文章强调了慈悲在进化过程中对人类行为和社会互动的重要性，为解决复杂的心理问题提供了新的视角和工具。

1 Compassion: Definitions and Evolutionary Roots In these first decades of the twenty-first century, compassion and self-compassion are increasingly being researched and applied as an active, empirically supported process variable in psychotherapy. This might not seem surprising, given that compassion has been at the center of contemplative practices for emotional healing for at least 2,600 years. Shakyamuni, or Gautama Buddha, taught that cultivating compassion could transform the mind, and his philosophical descen- dants have built upon his observations and insights ever since. Furthermore, most of the world’s major religions have specific prayers and imagery practices that involve the experience of compassion as a source of emotional comfort or redemption. In terms of psychotherapy, for some sixty years, starting with the work of Carl Rogers (1965), it has been proposed that empathy is central to psychotherapy. Since Rogers’s work, different therapies have explored the value of warmth and empathy in the psychotherapeutic relationship (Gilbert & Leahy, 2007; Greenberg & Paivio, 1997). However, compassion, as a process in itself, has only recently come to be seen as a core focus of psychotherapeutic work. As cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has increased its emphasis on applied mindfulness and acceptance-based approaches, it makes sense that mental training designed to intentionally foster a compassionate mind would become a growing trend in contextual behavior therapies like ACT and FAP. Contextual behavior therapies inherently address the interconnectedness between an organism and its context in a way that resonates with Buddhist psychology and the science of compassion. Additionally, this emphasis on compassion within behavioral therapies is a part of a trend toward greater integration of compassion- focused methods and Buddhist influences within psychotherapy across many theoretical approaches (Germer, Seigel, & Fulton, 2005). An effective approach to therapy that is grounded in compassion would target cultivation of compas- sion as a key process for enhancing emotion regulation, increasing psychological flexibility, and furthering well-being. Compassion-focused therapy provides us with a rapidly growing, evidence-based mode of psychotherapy that pursues these aims and is highly compatible with contextual behavioral approaches.

Definitions of Compassion The word “compassion” is derived from Middle English via Anglo-French from the Late Latin com-pati, which means “to suffer with or sympathize.” In current conceptualizations, compassion is rarely presented as a single emotion or cogni- tive process. Definitions of compassion usually suggest that compassion is made up of several processes that involve the following characteristics: • Mindful attention to and awareness of suffering • An understanding and felt sense of suffering and its causes • Motivation to remain open to suffering with the intention or wish to alleviate it In addition, conceptualizations of compassion often address the intercon- nectedness of human beings. While clinical psychology has yet to embrace a single definition of compassion, many writers, clinicians, and researchers have contributed to an ongoing scientific discussion regarding what is meant by “compassion.”

Indeed, several specific definitions of compassion are commonly used in psychotherapy and research and are worth consideration in establishing a model that ACT practitioners can deploy in their clinical work. McKay and Fanning (2000) define compassion as a multicomponent process that includes acceptance, understanding, and forgiveness—a definition that emerges from their work on self-esteem and self-criticism. They propose that compassion can be an essential component of an integrative cognitive behavioral treatment for self-criticism. Notably, each of the current applied psychological definitions of compassion either includes a component addressing self- criticism or has emerged from working with clients who struggle with high levels of self-criticism and shame-based difficulties (Neff, 2003b; Gilbert & Irons, 2005).

Definitions Within Self-Compassion Approaches Kristin Neff’s definition of self-compassion (2003a, 2003b) is derived from social psychology and Buddhist traditions and has likely become the most prev- alent model of self-compassion in clinical psychology at present. This is largely due to the widespread use of Neff’s Self-Compassion Scale (2003a) as the instru- ment of choice in the psychological study of compassion. Derived from Buddhist psychology, Neff’s model involves three essential experiential constructs: mind- fulness, self-kindness, and a sense of common humanity. Mindfulness involves focused and flexible awareness, acceptance, and a clear view of the nature of suffering (Nhat Hanh, 1998; K. G. Wilson & DuFrene, 2009). Self-kindness involves regarding oneself with warmth and care, rather than criticism and harsh judgments. Finally, common humanity involves recognition that all human beings face suffering and pain as they move through life. Furthermore, a sense of common humanity also allows for insight into the connection between one’s own experience and the experience of the whole of humanity. Higher levels of reported self-compassion have been found to be correlated with lower levels of depression and anxiety (Neff, 2003a; Neff, Hsieh, & Dejitterat, 2005; Neff, Rude, & Kirkpatrick, 2007), and these relationships persist even after controlling for the effects of self-criticism. The research of Neff and her col- leagues has also demonstrated positive correlations among self-compassion and a range of positive psychological dimensions (Neff, Rude, et al., 2007), including life satisfaction, feelings of social connectedness (Neff, Kirkpatrick, & Rude, 2007), and personal initiative and positive affect (Neff, Rude, et al., 2007).

Definitions Within ACT In ACT-consistent terms, Dahl, Plumb, Stewart, and Lundgren (2009) have outlined how compassion relates to psychological flexibility—the unified model of adaptive human functioning underlying ACT. Psychological flexibility has been defined as “contacting the present moment as a conscious human being, fully and without needless defense—as it is and not as what it says it is—and persisting with or changing a behavior in the service of chosen values” (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 2012, pp. 96–97).

According to the model of Dahl and her colleagues, compassion involves the ability to willingly experience difficult emotions; to mindfully observe our self-evaluative, distressing, and shaming thoughts without allowing them to dominate our actions or states of mind; to engage more fully in life pursuits with self-kindness and self-validation; and to flexibly shift our perspective toward a broader, transcendent sense of self (Hayes, 2008b). Hayes and colleagues (2012) specifically link compassion and self-acceptance to perspective-taking processes. According to the ACT model, the human ability to be conscious of our own pain involves awareness of the pain of others. Similarly, when we develop the ability to be less dominated by categorical, judgmental self-evaluations, we may more readily let go of condemnations and judgments of others. From this per- spective, as we cultivate compassion, we are developing core elements of psy- chological flexibility, and as we become more flexible, we have the opportunity to grow in compassion.

Definitions Within Compassion-Focused Therapy Paul Gilbert (2005) has drawn upon developmental psychology, affective neuroscience, Buddhist practical philosophy, and evolutionary theory to develop a comprehensive form of experiential behavior therapy known as compassion- focused therapy, or CFT. Gilbert (2007) describes compassion as a multifaceted process that has evolved from the caregiver mentality found in human parental care and child rearing. As such, compassion includes a number of emotional, cognitive, and motivational elements involved in the ability to create opportu- nities for growth and change with warmth and care (Gilbert, 2007). Gilbert (2009a) defines the essence of compassion as “a basic kindness, with deep awareness of the suffering of oneself and of other living things, coupled with the wish and effort to relieve it” (p. 13). This definition involves two central dimensions of compassion. The first is known as the psychology of engagement and involves sensitivity to and awareness of the presence of suffering and its causes. The second dimension is known as the psychology of alleviation and con- stitutes both the motivation and the commitment to take actual steps to allevi- ate the suffering we encounter (Gilbert & Choden, 2013).

When we view these two dimensions of compassion in terms of our work as clinicians, we can connect with a felt sense of compassion in action. Imagine you have your first session or two with a young man who suffers from severe social anxiety. He is a bright and caring student and spends some of his free time volunteering as a tutor for students at the state university. His descriptions of his experience suggest that years of bullying by schoolmates and being emo- tionally abused by his father have fueled a hostile inner voice that savagely shames and criticizes him. When he thinks about meeting with friends at a party or concert, he expects that they will reject and judge him. Even just speak- ing about social meetups fills him with dread and despair. As you spend time with this client, listening with an open heart, looking into his eyes, and seeing the pain and shame he has experienced, you might be increasingly sensitive to his suffering. You may feel emotionally moved upon hearing about the abuse he suffered, experiencing a resonant sadness or anger when in his presence. And as you come into contact with the client and understand more of his story, you might feel motivated to help him deal with his anxiety and distress. You might feel a sense of professional and personal commitment to help him feel grounded in the moment and step forward into a life that has greater meaning and opportunity for joy. Although taking those steps might mean the client comes into contact with great anxiety, your compassionate motivation wouldn’t be soft or weak. You probably wouldn’t feel compelled to help him to avoid social situations or curl up and hide.

Both of the psychologies of compassion would be awakened within you. You would feel an awareness of and engagement with the suffering you encountered in this therapeutic relationship, and you would feel a commitment and motiva- tion to do something to help alleviate that suffering. Your compassionate mind would be active, and it might serve you well as an ally in the work of helping the client make important changes in his life. In time, the client may also learn to activate his own capacity for self-compassion, intentionally directing warmth and support toward himself and creating a range of new possibilities for mean- ingful action in the process.

While the clinical utility of Gilbert’s CFT definition and theoretical model of compassion is readily apparent, it is important to recognize that CFT has developed its conceptualization of compassion from a foundation in basic science rather than clinical observation. The CFT model of the two psycholo- gies of compassion—engagement and alleviation—links the processes that contribute to experiences of compassion and emotion with highly evolved neu- rophysiological systems, especially those associated with social behavior (Gilbert, 2007).

The Two Psychologies of Compassion and ACT The emerging common ground across psychological science is that compas- sion is a complex and multimodal organization of human behaviors with clear antecedents in human evolution and emotional processes rooted in inheritable response patterns that develop even prior to birth. However, compassion also involves verbal learning and specific developmental experiences that occur in a social context. Understandably, the emphasis within ACT and contextual CBT upon the prediction and influence of human behavior with precision, depth, and scope is highly relevant to broadening our understanding of compassion. The contextual behavioral science (CBS) approach that underpins ACT invites us to examine the precise dynamics of both the verbal learning involved in human compassion and the emotional, biological, and inherited response pat- terns that contribute to our awareness of suffering and our efforts to address the pain we encounter in the world. In some instances, compassion can be viewed as involving a skill set that can be cultivated through mental training and serve as a significant part of the emotional healing process (Davidson, 2003; Gilbert, 2009b; Lutz, Brefczynski-Lewis, Johnstone, & Davidson, 2008). Importantly, compassion involves the activation of the emotions that arise in connected, intimate, and close relationships. We refer to these emotions, which involve empathy, warmth, and care, as affiliative emotions. Activation of networks of affiliative emotions can promote focused, flexible attention and a broadening of the range of possible actions in the presence of stimuli that typically narrow behavioral repertoires. Indeed, research has increasingly established that com- passion can facilitate lasting change in the way we experience and respond to suffering (Gumley, Braehler, Laithwaite, MacBeth, & Gilbert, 2010; Hofmann, Grossman, & Hinton, 2011).

In accord with Gilbert’s model of compassion described above (2010), here we will briefly conceptualize compassion and its two dimensions in terms of acceptance and commitment processes, and in accord with functional contex- tual assumptions.

The psychology of engagement: This dimension involves the ability to notice, turn toward, pay attention to, and engage with suffering. Engagement with compassion involves several aspects, all of which facilitate awareness of and sensitivity to suffering. These processes relate to experiential acceptance rather than experiential avoidance: turning toward the things that are difficult to bear with a motivation to engage with the suffering we encounter. In terms of the ACT model of psychological flexibility, processes that emphasize acceptance, willingness, and awareness are clearly related to the CFT psychology of engagement.

The psychology of alleviation: This dimension involves developing and main- taining the wisdom, skill, and behavioral capacity to take effective and person- ally meaningful action in the presence of suffering. Such action may involve direct steps to alleviate suffering and its causes, yet it may also involve develop- ing the commitment to remain in the presence of difficult emotions with com- passionate acceptance. The ACT processes of owning one’s values and making a commitment to embodying those values are related to the psychology of alleviation.

Speaking to the healing quality of the experience of compassion, Christopher Germer states that “compassion is a quality of mind that can transform the experience of pain, even making it worthwhile. When we open to pain in a compassionate way, there is a feeling of freedom— of nonresistance, noncontraction—and a deep sense of connection to others—of expanding beyond ourselves” (Germer, 2012, p. 93). When flexible perspective taking affords us an opportunity to turn compassion inward, phenomenological quali- ties of mindful awareness, loving-kindness, and a broader sense of an intercon- nected self may become more apparent (Neff, 2011). This is territory that will likely be quite familiar to the experienced ACT practitioner, and that merits further expansion and exploration within the CBS rubric.

As we approach a functional understanding of compassion, there is a strik- ing continuity between compassion and other concepts derived from contem- plative practice that can contribute to well-being. Mindfulness, acceptance, and compassion are often described as interrelated processes. For example, several writers have established that training in mindfulness involves a willingness to contact the present moment just as it is and effects an emergent form of self- kindness and self-validation (Kabat-Zinn, 2009). Other writers have highlighted the ways in which mindfulness and compassion are complementary core pro- cesses in psychological health that remain distinct, describing mindfulness and compassion as two wings of a bird—a classic Buddhist metaphor (Germer, 2012). While these processes can be construed as interconnected or discrete to varying degrees, mindfulness training has been used as a preparatory practice for the cultivation of compassion and a healthy psychological perspective throughout thousands of years of contemplative practice (Tirch, 2010; Wallace, 2009). And although mindfulness and other healthy qualities of mind may be involved in the experience of compassion, we suggest that compassion is a dis- tinct process, with a distinct evolutionary trajectory, quality, and functional application.

Clinical Example: Using Compassion in Working with a Client with a History of Trauma The following is the first in a series of clinical vignettes that will illustrate how compassion can be used as an active process in psychotherapy. As we proceed, we will clarify and explain the details of how to work with these processes through specific techniques and exercises. While all identifying information has been changed, these vignettes are all drawn from actual sessions. When a therapist’s emotional response is indicated, this is meant to describe the thera- pist’s genuine, experiential connection with the affect experienced in the room. Importantly, bringing a compassionate focus to psychotherapy extends beyond mere validation of emotions to empathic bridging and affective connection and expression. Compassion in psychotherapy may often first be evident in the emo- tional tone and intention present in the relationship between client and therapist.

This first example illustrates the activation of compassion in the therapeutic alliance during an ACT session. Ella is a thirty-five-year-old woman meeting criteria for borderline personality disorder who is back in therapy specifically to deal with her history of sexual trauma. She and her brother were sexually abused by an uncle when they were between the ages of six and ten. She feels so much shame around what happened then that she never disclosed it in her previous therapeutic work. After six months of intense relationship-centered ACT work, she asked her therapist to address it, and they have spent the past three sessions doing trauma work.

Therapist: You’re just so brave to have finally chosen to open up about this. Client: ( Looks down.) I don’t think I’m brave. I’ve hidden it all these years and I feel so ashamed. Therapist: In my eyes, you are even braver to share it when you feel so much shame. You know, I don’t see what happened to you as anything to be ashamed of. I see it as something horrible. The thought of this little girl that you were being abused makes me so sad and angry. (The therapist is visibly emotionally engaged with the client.) Client: (Looks down and stays silent.) Therapist: What’s going on right now? Client: If you only knew how worthless I am, you’d hate me too. Therapist: I understand how a part of you might feel that here and now. You’ve been carrying this for a long time. Can you see how sad I feel for that little girl and how sad I am that you had to go through that? Client: I know you mean well and it’s your job not to judge, but I am so ashamed of what I did. Therapist: Ella, you did nothing. It was done to you. Client: (Starts weeping.) It’s worse than you think. Whenever she approaches talking about the trauma, Ella is overcome by overwhelming feelings of shame. She liked her uncle and can even remem- ber having felt pleasure during some of the abuse. Worse still, she recalls an instance of bringing her brother to her uncle, whereupon he was abused, and then telling her brother not to tell anyone. To this day she has never spoken to her brother about the abuse, and her sense of shame and self- hatred has only grown over the years. In a case such as Ella’s, we believe that actively fostering a compassionate perspective on herself and the past actions of that abused, lost, and confused child is a key to recovery. Therapist: When you’re ready to share more, I’ll be here. What I do know now is that being sexually abused as a child is one of the most confusing and shaming experiences possible. And being abused by someone we trust or love can make it so much worse. How can we ever know who to trust? We can even come to believe we were somehow responsible for or complicit in the abuse. Client: ( Weeps softly.) I feel ashamed that I sometimes liked it—some of it. (Weeps more strongly.) Oh my god, I’m never going to dare to look at you again. Therapist: I’m here for you. It’s so incredibly painful and so incredibly coura- geous for you to share this. I don’t know if you can believe this, but it makes me respect you more that you at last have the courage to break out of the isolation the abuse forced you into and are sharing this with me. I want to honor your courage as much as I want to respect your boundaries. (Becomes teary.) Client: (Weeps softly.) Thank you. Therapist: If you feel up to it, would you be prepared to look into my eyes and tell me what you see? Client: I don’t know if I can. Therapist: It’s okay if you don’t. Take your time. Client: (Raises her head and looks into the therapist’s teary eyes.) Therapist: What do you see? Client: I see sadness. Therapist: Do you see judgment? Client: (Pauses.) No. I see that you are there for me. Therapist: I am. My mind also goes back to that little girl. Is it okay if I speak to her? Client: (Hesitates.) Yes. Therapist: I’m so sad that you are going through this. It must be so frightening and confusing. You must feel so alone. I want you to know that you didn’t choose what you have been put through, and that this is so very much not your fault. Client: (Weeps.) I am so ashamed. I’ve been bad. Therapist: You’re in an impossible situation and you need someone to protect you. Client: (Cries softly.) Yes. Thank you. Therapist: I’m here for you. (Pauses.) And if you could go speak to that little girl, what would you tell her? Client: I ’ve hated you so much all these years. (Weeps.) But I know it wasn’t your fault. You just needed someone to protect you, and no one was there. Therapist: I want you to know that I can see your incredible pain and shame, and that I hope you and that little girl will, together, find your way through it. I think that what you both need is not more judgment or being shamed, but some kindness and compassion.

Evolution, Cognition, and Behavior: What Is Characteristically Human? To place the experience of compassion in the context of human evolution, an individual’s learning history, and the context of the present moment, we begin with an exploration of how compassion has evolved and how it relates to what is fundamentally human in us all. If we observe the simplest of living organisms, perhaps a single-celled life-form like an amoeba, we can notice it move away from a potentially harmful stimulus, like cold, heat, or touch. And we can also notice it move toward a source of food. Of course, an amoeba isn’t thinking or making decisions in the way we might, but it still inherently responds to poten- tial threats and potential life-sustaining conditions by either moving toward or away from them, discriminating between aversive and appetitive stimuli. As life-forms evolve and become more complex, they are able to respond to what they encounter in their environment in increasingly sophisticated ways, yet that basic discrimination between moving toward life-sustaining (appetitive) stimuli and away from potential danger (aversive stimuli) remains present as the root variable controlling all behaviors. For example, consider a pet dog. We know that this dog can learn to respond to changes in its environment by increasing certain behaviors or decreasing other behaviors. The dog can learn to run toward the kitchen when it hears the sound of its food bowl being filled, a type of behavior that is under appetitive control. And the dog can learn to run away from the living room when it hears the angry voice of its owner, a type of behavior that is under aversive control. We humans also behave under either aversive or appetitive control, but since we have uniquely human capacities for symbolic thinking and complex emotional responding, discriminating between what is harmful or helpful to us can become infinitely complicated. From a CBS perspective, the term “behavior” is used to represent anything and everything that a human being may do (Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991; Törneke, 2010). From daydreaming to running, from digesting to feeling sad, from seeing to loving, from thinking to perceiving, the entire range of human actions and experience is seen as constituting behavior. This is in accord with B. F. Skinner’s perspective (1974) and is particularly germane to a scientific approach because it helps us consider the whole of our experience, whether public (through our five senses) or private (through the mind’s eye or inner sensations), as not being different in essence. In terms of psychological science, this is useful because the basic rules of how to predict and influence behaviors have been well studied in experimental psychology, and many of these rules apply to both mental and physical behaviors (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001). It also helps with overcoming the philosophical conundrums inherent in dualistic positions regarding how one type of thing (mental stuff) could exert a controlling influ- ence over something different in essence (physical matter).

Evolved Fusion Research has repeatedly demonstrated that humans have a tendency to respond to symbolic, mental events as though they were literal events in the external world (Dymond, Schlund, Roche, & Whelan, 2013; Ruiz, 2010), a phenomenon referred to as fusion in ACT (Hayes et al., 1999). When called to mind, unpleasant things can put us under aversive control, whereas pleasant things can result in appetitive control. For example, consider a man who has lived with generalized anxiety disorder for decades and persistently worries about his finances. He’s likely to often worry about how he might become des- titute, lose whatever savings he may have, and perhaps even become homeless. When his mind generates a range of worries and imaginary scenarios, these mental events are likely to influence his actions. He might be very averse to risk when making financial decisions and therefore miss important opportunities. Furthermore, he might be reluctant to assert himself in the workplace and live in fear of upsetting his supervisor or coworkers. Day after day, he is responding to his worries as if they were real, and his life becomes smaller and smaller as his range of activities becomes increasingly constricted. So, with the evolutionary emergence of complex human cognition some two million years ago, human behavior began to come under the influence of our thoughts and emotions, as well as our outer environment, which can be both useful and problematic. It can be useful in that it allows us to conjure up models of the world in our mind’s eye and then test them out in the real world, leading to a technological explo- sion that’s radically improved our survival prospects. But it can also have some problematic side effects. Through fusion, our behavior can become so dominated by the influence of mental events that we are sometimes more controlled by inner representations than actual factors in the outside world (Strosahl, Hayes, Wilson, & Gifford, 2004). For example, if a woman’s mental representation of a party involves a group of judgmental guests who are going to mock her under their breath and shun her, she may experience anxiety. Furthermore, she may attempt to avoid the party and experience physical symptoms of anxious arousal through the sympathetic nervous system, and her mind may generate debilitating thoughts such as You can’t handle parties and You’re such a social reject. These may come to such prominence that, if she takes them literally, even if she attends the party and all of the guests are friendly, she still may experience fear, self-criticism, and an attentional bias toward the negative due to the influence of mental events on her biology and behavior (Barlow, 2002; Greene et al., 2008). When we are under the aversive control of mental events, we tend to try to mentally suppress or avoid such events. It makes sense that we may naturally want to run away from feelings, images, and ideas that are unpleasant because in the outside world, running away from dangerous things is usually a good strategy. The problem here is that the more we try to push away an unwanted thought or feeling, the more it tends to show up, and the more it may come to dominate our experience and control our behavior. How many of us have lain awake at night trying to avoid thinking about a problem at work or school the next day? Experimental and clinical research has repeatedly verified that suppressing thoughts or emotions has the paradoxical result that they show up with greater frequency, and that attempts at experiential avoidance are what drive a lot of psychological suffering (Ruiz, 2010; Wenzlaff & Wegner, 2000). Under the dominance of distressing mental events and subsequent embodied emotional responses, we become hooked into aversively controlled attempts at avoidance and control, which can keep us trapped in an endless cycle of suffer- ing and a sense of being profoundly stuck. Fusion involves mental events exerting an influence over our behavior—not just verbal behaviors, but also physiological responses, including emotional responses at a level that is not expressed or experienced in recognizably verbal terms. As mentioned, much of what we experience as humans, including many of our behaviors, is shared with other animals. In evolutionary terms, these response patterns are older than humanity. For example, territorial behaviors, sexual behaviors, affiliative responses, and emotions such as fear or disgust all have evolutionary precursors in prehuman animals. Similarly, elements of emo- tional experiencing are situated in bodily responses that are not dependent upon cognition. While a single definition of emotion is elusive, emotions can be conceived of as evolutionary emergent psychophysiological phenomena that guide an organism in adaptation to environmental demands (Levenson, 1994); provide ingrained ways of preserving an organism’s welfare (Panksepp, 1994); and have a heritable, universal nature that allows our present responses to be guided by our ancestral past (Ekman, 1992, 1994; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990). Considerable evidence from a wide range of animals, especially primates, supports the view that rudimentary forms of caring behavior, altruism, and other types of kind- ness are widespread (de Waal, 2009). And, undoubtedly, ancestral humans who practiced compassion, group protectiveness, sharing of food, and care for the young or sick were more likely to survive than those who were more indifferent to one another’s welfare (D. S. Wilson, 2007).

Evolution, Cooperation, and Compassion Contextual science theorists, notably Steven C. Hayes, are currently explor- ing an evolutionary context for understanding human verbal behavior and are situating their understanding of language and cognition in evolutionary terms (Hayes & Long, 2013; D. S. Wilson, Hayes, Biglan, & Embry, 2012). Hayes and Long (2013) recently recalled B. F. Skinner’s proposition that “all behavior is due to genes, some more or less directly, the rest through the role of genes in producing structures which are modified during the lifetime of the individual” (Skinner, 1974, p. 704). Hayes’s integration of CBS and evolutionary science stresses cooperation as our chief evolutionary advantage, and the evolutionary antecedent of both human cognition and compassion (Hayes & Long, 2013). While some of our behaviors are shared with our evolutionary ancestors, at least three domains—cognition, culture, and cooperation—are particularly important in understanding human behavior (Hayes & Long, 2013; D. S. Wilson et al., 2012). As discussed, in basic terms cognition involves symbolic thought—a representation of the world around us that can guide our actions (Hayes & Long, 2013; Von Eckardt, 1995). In evolutionary terms, culture stands for our capacity to communicate and transfer a body of learning across genera- tions and among people. In this way, the acquired cognitions and response pat- terns that have been hard earned through our evolutionary history are not dependent upon the survival of a single generation of the species or a single group. Our collective learning can be transmitted into the future of our spe- cies—a transmission that has a huge impact on social contexts and on how genotypic potentials are phylogenetically and individually expressed (Hayes & Long, 2013).

Regarding the third element of human behavior that is characteristic of our species, cooperation, this represents our ability to work with one another to achieve specific aims. Humans cooperate at a level of complexity and consis- tency unknown in other animals, and as such we possess an evolutionary advan- tage through our ability to communicate and work with one another. Evolutionary theorists are beginning to hypothesize that cooperative behavior may have led to the differentiation of our species from other primates through the efficiency of between-group selection (Hayes & Long, 2013; Nowak & Highfield, 2011). More effective groups of early humans, working together and communicating in eusocial ways, were perhaps more likely to thrive than groups of other primates, where individual selection may have led to less efficient collective adaptation. In order to understand this better, imagine a group of early nonhuman primates competing for resources with the earliest humans. Our ancient ancestors would have had the advantage of being able to cooperate and communicate with one another in more precise and subtle ways than other primates, allowing them to use and share knowledge of tools, work together to accomplish aims, point out potential sources of danger, and look after one another when an individual was wounded or healing. Under the influence of the principles of adaptation, varia- tion, and selection between groups, such a group might develop superior ways of flexibly interacting with the environment, promoting the survival and flourish- ing of the collective. The significant benefits of cooperation would logically contribute to the selection and elaboration of the human capacity for verbal communication and emergent symbolic or representational thinking. Some animals do exhibit a capacity to respond to the perceived intentions of others, including apes and even crows (Call & Tomasello, 1999; Clayton et al., 2007), and these species may pool their behavioral resources for survival to some extent. However, it appears that humans alone respond to and use non- verbal gestures, facial expressions, and utterances in sophisticated cooperative ways that facilitate the transmission of emotional information (Call & Tomasello, 1999; Tomasello, Call, & Gluckman, 1997). In fact, human beings may be the only truly eusocial and cooperative vertebrates on our planet (Foster & Ratnieks, 2005; Hayes & Long, 2013).

The advantage of cooperation has probably played a role in the selection for and evolutionary emergence of human language. In turn, the development of human language likely contributed to the development of a verbal community that could selectively reinforce the development of human cognition (Hayes & Long, 2013; Hayes et al., 2012). As far as we know, humans alone can express themselves as speakers and listeners and experience themselves in a specific point in space and time, with a particular identity. In this way, the embodied evolutionary intelligence of genetically inherent motivations and emotions has interacted with the human capacity for symbolic representation to create the range of human behaviors, which are highly dependent upon social contexts, verbal learning, and the elaboration of internal networks of cognition. From this basis, humans experience themselves as selves and the human behavior of construing a separate self-identity emerges.

As we will explore throughout in this book, the human ability to construe a self in relation to another, capacity for perspective taking, and evolved tendency to experience soothing and stillness in the presence of affiliative emotional experiences are some of the seeds of our compassionate mind. And all of these qualities flow from our unique human experience of being within the coopera- tive, social context—the sense of “I-you,” and the more important sense of “we.” Interestingly, verbal processes also depend on a stable social context. That context, a function of cooperation in the verbal community, provides the basis from which a perspective of self, of the “I-here-now-ness” of being, gradually emerges as children learn to frame and relate their experience in relation and in contrast to “you-there-then” (Hayes, 1984). In this way, our deepest sense of self and emerging spiritual experiences arise as a function of verbal behavior and are mediated by a verbal community (Hayes, 1984). Thus, our sense of our own individual perspective involves the ability to imagine viewing the world through another’s perspective, which further strengthens compassionate behavior, this time mediated verbally.

We believe this evolutionary contextual understanding of compassion can help make a great deal of sense of the connections between well-being, compas- sion, and psychological flexibility. As noted, Gilbert (2009a) emphasizes that compassion is an evolved human capacity that emerges from human behavioral systems involving attachment and affiliation, an argument supported by empiri- cal research. Seeking proximity and soothing from caregivers in order to obtain a secure base for operation in the world is a mammalian behavior that predates human abilities for verbal responding and deriving a sense of self in relation to another, and predates the meta-awareness and observational capacity that arises in mindfulness training. The evolutionary advantage that we have in our capac- ity for cognition and verbal behavior is what has resulted in our particularly human quality of self-awareness, our ability to be aware of our awareness (i.e., mindfulness), and our ability to base our behavior on abstract thought and imagination, including our capacity to be sensitive to and moved by the suffer- ing we witness. According to D. S. Wilson and colleagues (2012), this human capacity for symbolic thought affords us with an “inheritance system” that potentially has a combinatorial diversity similar to that of recombinant DNA. In this way, both our genetic and psycholinguistic evolution have led us to be soothed by the experience of self-compassion, and have allowed that experience of soothing and the ensuing courage to afford us with greater psychological flexibility and a secure base for functioning in the world.

Wang (2005) hypothesizes that human compassion emerges from an evolu- tionarily determined “species- preservative” neurophysiological system. This system is hypothesized as evolving in a relatively recent evolutionary time frame compared to the older “self-preservative” system. This “species-preservative” system is “based on an inclusive sense of self and promotes awareness of our interconnectedness to others” (Wang, 2005, p. 75). Relative to some other animals, human infants and children may seem defenseless, as they require a great deal of care and protection early in life. As a result, particular brain struc- tures and other elements of the nervous and endocrine systems have evolved to promote nurturing behaviors of protecting and caring for others. Basic examples of this evolutionary progression can be observed by contrasting the parenting behaviors of reptiles and amphibians, for example, to those of mammalian species. The former lack even the most basic nurturing behaviors toward their young, while mammalian species observably display a wide range of caretaking behaviors.

Moving higher on the evolutionary ladder, Wang’s review of the relevant literature suggests that the human prefrontal cortex, cingulate cortex, and ventral vagal complex are involved in the activation of this “species-preservative” system (Wang, 2005). These structures all play a role in the development of healthy attachment bonds and self-compassion. The development of both indi- vidually adaptive and group adaptive behavioral systems for dealing with threats can be viewed as an example of multilevel selection theory (D. S. Wilson, 2008); it reflects how our evolutionary history informs our verbal relational network in ways that connect us to one another, and also informs our place as an emergent species in the flow of life. Such an evolutionary perspective is intrinsically con- textual in nature and reflects a potential area for multidisciplinary theoretical integration in the developing science of self-compassion.