雅思练习总结（七）

雅思练习总结（七）

本文章是雅思练习总结（七），总结了文章《Nature or Nurture?》，内容包括原文精翻，文章脉络总结，单词扩展学习3个部分

1 文章原文及翻译

Nature or Nurture?

翻译：人性之劣根还是社会的扭曲？

A
A few years ago, in one of the most fascinating and disturbing experiments in behavioural psychology, Stanley Milgram of Yale University tested 40 subjects from all walks of life for their willingness to obey instructions given by a ‘leader’ in a situation in which the subjects might feel a personal distaste for the actions they were called upon to perform. Specifically, Milgram told each volunteer ‘teacher-subject’ that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils’ ability to learn.

翻译：几年前，耶鲁大学进行了一项有趣但令人不安的行为心理学实验，负责人斯坦利·米尔格拉姆测试了来自各行各业的 40 名受试者。实验的目的是为了观察其对“领导者”指示的服从意愿。且在实验中，受试者可能会被要求做一些“令他们不舒服”的事。具体来说，米尔格拉姆对担任“教师”角色的志愿者们说，这项实验是为了崇高的教育事业，仅仅是旨在测试惩罚学生的错误是否会对学生的学习能力产生积极影响。

B
Milgram’s experimental set-up involved placing the teacher-subject before a panel of thirty switches with labels ranging from ‘15 volts of electricity (slight shock)’ to ‘450 volts (danger - severe shock)’ in steps of 15 volts each. The teacher-subject was told that whenever the pupil gave the wrong answer to a question, a shock was to be administered, beginning at the lowest level and increasing in severity with each successive wrong answer. The supposed ‘pupil’ was in reality an actor hired by Milgram to simulate receiving the shocks by emitting a spectrum of groans, screams and writhings together with an assortment of statements and expletives denouncing both the experiment and the experimenter. Milgram told the teacher-subject to ignore the reactions of the pupil, and to administer whatever level of shock was called for, as per the rule governing the experimental situation of the moment.

翻译：米尔格拉姆的实验设置包括：将“教师”们放在一个标有从“15 伏特（轻微电击）”到“450 伏特（危险 - 严重电击）”，每2个开关以 15 伏特递增的 30 个开关的面板前。“教师”们需要用电击来惩罚回答错误的学生。惩罚电压从最低的15伏特开始，只要连续答错，就会提升一级惩罚电压。在实验中，所谓的“学生”实际上是米尔格拉姆雇佣的一名演员，他的任务是通过发出一系列呻吟、尖叫、乱动和对“老师”们以及实验发起者的咒骂来假装受到了“老师”们的电击。而米尔格拉姆则告诉“老师”们，不要理会“学生”的反应，严格按照实验规则来施加电击。

C
As the experiment unfolded, the pupil would deliberately give the wrong answers to questions posed by the teacher, thereby bringing on various electrical punishments, even up to the danger level of 300 volts and beyond. Many of the teacher-subjects balked at administering the higher levels of punishment, and turned to Milgram with questioning looks and/or complaints about continuing the experiment. In these situations, Milgram calmly explained that the teacher-subject was to ignore the pupil’s cries for mercy and carry on with the experiment. If the subject was still reluctant to proceed, Milgram said that it was important for the sake of the experiment that the procedure be followed through to the end. His final argument was, ‘You have no other choice. You must go on.’ What Milgram was trying to discover was the number of teacher-subjects who would be willing to administer the highest levels of shock, even in the face of strong personal and moral revulsion against the rules and conditions of the experiment.

翻译：在实验的进行过程中，“学生”会故意连续答错问题，以使惩罚电压一路升高到危险的300 伏特。许多“教师”们对施加高电压惩罚表现出了抗拒，并转而质疑甚至抱怨米尔格拉姆让他们继续实验的要求。面对这种情况，米尔格拉姆只是强调，“教师”们就是应该忽略“学生”的求饶声，继续进行实验。而如果受试者依然坚持，米尔格拉姆就会搬出，“为了实验的利益，就是要把程序进行到底”，甚至直接要求受试者说，“你别无选择。你必须继续。”米尔格拉姆实验的真实目的是观察出，到底有多少教师受试者，会在对实验规则和条件的强烈个人和道德反感下，仍然愿意施加最高程度的电击。

D
Prior to carrying out the experiment, Milgram explained his idea to a group of 39 psychiatrists and asked them to predict the average percentage of people in an ordinary population who would be willing to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts. The overwhelming consensus was that virtually all the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrists felt that ‘most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts’ and they further anticipated that only four per cent would go up to 300 volts. Furthermore, they thought that only a lunatic fringe of about one in 1,000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts.

翻译：在进行实验之前，米尔格拉姆向一组 39 名精神病学家解释了他的想法，并要求他们预测普通人群中愿意施加最高 450 伏电击的人的平均百分比。当时他们绝大多数都认为，几乎所有的教师受试者都会拒绝服从米尔格拉姆持续升高电压的要求，甚至认为“大多数受试者不会施加超过 150 伏的电压”。他们的预测结果是，只有 4% 的人会将电击提高到 300 伏，而至于最高的 450 伏电击，恐怕只有疯子才能干得出来。

E
What were the actual results? Well, over 60 per cent of the teacher-subjects continued to obey Milgram up to the 450-volt limit! In repetitions of the experiment in other countries, the percentage of obedient teacher-subjects was even higher, reaching 85 per cent in one country. How can we possibly account for this vast discrepancy between what calm, rational, knowledgeable people predict in the comfort of their study and what pressured, flustered, but cooperative ‘teachers’ actually do in the laboratory of real life?

翻译：那么实验的实际结果如何呢？超过 60% 的“教师”选择服从米尔格拉姆的指令，一直到电压达到 450 伏特！而在其他国家重复实验时，服从的“教师”比例甚至更高，在某个国家甚至达到了 85%。那么这种巨大的差异的成因是什么呢：冷静、理性、知识渊博的人在舒适的书房中预测的结果，与承受巨大心理压力、心烦意乱但原意合作的“教师”在实际实验中的行为几乎完全倒转？

F
One’s first inclination might be to argue that there must be some sort of built-in animal aggression instinct that was activated by the experiment, and that Milgram’s teacher-subjects were just following a genetic need to discharge this pent-up primal urge onto the pupil by administering the electrical shock. A modern hard-core sociobiologist might even go so far as to claim that this aggressive instinct evolved as an advantageous trait, having been of survival value to our ancestors in their struggle against the hardships of life on the plains and in the caves, ultimately finding its way into our genetic make-up as a remnant of our ancient animal ways.

翻译：一个浅显的解释是，实验激发了受试者作为生物的某种内在攻击本能，他们只是顺应了基因需求，任由自己通过电击将这种被压抑的原始冲动发泄到“学生”身上。现代的铁杆社会生物学家甚至会进一步声称，这种攻击本能是内化到基因中的，进化而来的一种有利特征，遗传自我们与生活艰苦斗争的穴居祖先。

G
An alternative to this notion of genetic programming is to see the teacher-subjects’ actions as a result of the social environment under which the experiment was carried out. As Milgram himself pointed out, ‘Most subjects in the experiment see their behaviour in a larger context that is benevolent and useful to society - the pursuit of scientific truth. The psychological laboratory has a strong claim to legitimacy and evokes trust and confidence in those who perform there. An action such as shocking a victim, which in isolation appears evil, acquires a completely different meaning when placed in this setting.’

翻译：除了遗传论之外，另一种观点是：“教师”们的行为是实验所设计的社会环境所造成的。正如米尔格拉姆本人指出的那样，“实验中的大多数受试者都把自己的行为隐藏在为科学研究做贡献的大旗下，所以可以心安理得。在被信任的实验人员告知，实验中电击受害者也是合理合法的实验行为，他们也就可以给自己的恶劣行径一个合理的解释。”

H
Thus, in this explanation the subject merges his unique personality and personal and moral code with that of larger institutional structures, surrendering individual properties like loyalty, self-sacrifice and discipline to the service of malevolent systems of authority.

翻译：因此，在这种解释的情景下，受试者将其独特的个性、个人和道德准则融入集体制度中，以一种屈服的姿态，将忠诚、自我牺牲和纪律等个人资产上缴给了邪恶的权威系统。

I
Here we have two radically different explanations for why so many teacher-subjects were willing to forgo their sense of personal responsibility for the sake of an institutional authority figure. The problem for biologists, psychologists and anthropologists is to sort out which of these two polar explanations is more plausible. This, in essence, is the problem of modern sociobiology - to discover the degree to which hard-wired genetic programming dictates, or at least strongly biases, the interaction of animals and humans with their environment, that is, their behaviour. Put another way, sociobiology is concerned with elucidating the biological basis of all behaviour.

翻译：两种截然不同的解释都通过各自的观点说明了，为什么这么多受试者愿意因为某个代表权威的人物之要求，而完全自我责任感。生物学家、心理学家和人类学家面临的问题是找出这两种截然不同的解释中，哪一个更加合理。而这个问题，本质上是现代社会生物学所面临的，即遗传特性会在多大程度上决定或至少导致人类与环境的互动中的行为偏好。换句话说，社会生物学的主要研究内容就是阐明所有行为的生物学基础。

2 文章结构分