自然段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.

几年前，耶鲁大学的斯坦利·米尔格拉姆进行了一项最具吸引力和令人不安的行为心理学实验之一，测试了来自各行各业的40名受试者服从一位“领导者”指令的意愿。在这个实验中，受试者可能会对自己被要求执行的行为感到个人的厌恶。具体而言，米尔格拉姆告诉每个志愿者“教师-受试者”，实验是为了教育的崇高事业，并旨在测试对学生犯错误进行惩罚是否对学生的学习能力产生积极影响。

自然段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.

米尔格拉姆的实验设置是将教师-受试者置于一个有30个开关的面板前，标签从“15伏特电（轻微电击）”到“450伏特（危险-严重电击）”，每次增加15伏特。告诉教师-受试者，每当学生回答问题错误时，都要给予电击，从最低电压开始，每个错误答案电击的强度都会增大。所谓的“学生”实际上是米尔格拉姆雇佣的演员，通过发出一系列的呻吟、尖叫和蜷缩，并伴随着一系列指责实验和实验者的言论和咒骂，来模拟接收电击。米尔格拉姆告诉教师-受试者忽略学生的反应，并根据当前实验情况的规则进行适当级别的电击。

自然段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.

随着实验的进行，学生故意回答教师提出的问题错误，从而引发各种电击惩罚，甚至达到300伏特及以上的危险水平。许多教师-受试者不愿意施加更高级别的惩罚，并向米尔格拉姆表示疑问，并对继续实验提出抱怨。在这些情况下，米尔格拉姆镇定地解释说，教师-受试者应该忽略学生的哀求，继续进行实验。如果受试者仍然不愿继续，米尔格拉姆会说，出于实验的重要性，必须坚持完整的程序。他最后的论点是：“你别无选择，你必须继续。”米尔格拉姆试图发现在个人和道德上对实验的规则和条件产生强烈厌恶的情况下，有多少教师-受试者愿意施加最高电击水平。

自然段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.

在进行实验之前，米尔格拉姆向39名精神病学家解释了他的想法，并请他们预测普通人群中有多少百分比的人愿意施加最高电击450伏特。压倒性的共识是，几乎所有教师-受试者都会拒绝服从实验者。这些精神病学家认为“大多数受试者不会超过150伏特”，并且他们进一步预计只有4%的人会上升到300伏特。此外，他们认为只有1000人中的一小部分会给予最高450伏特的电击。

自然段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?

实际结果如何呢？超过60%的教师-受试者一直服从米尔格拉姆直到450伏特的极限！在其他国家重复实验时，服从实验者的教师-受试者的比例甚至更高，一个国家达到85%。我们如何解释在舒适的研究环境中冷静、理性、知识渊博的人所做出的预测与在现实生活的实验室中被迫、慌乱但合作的“教师”所做的实际行为之间的巨大差异呢？

自然段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.

首先，人们可能会认为实验激发了某种内在的动物攻击本能，并且米尔格拉姆的教师-受试者只是遵循一种基因需要，通过给予电击将这种积压的原始冲动释放到学生身上。一个现代的强硬社会生物学家甚至可能会声称，这种攻击本能作为一种有利特征进化，对我们的祖先在对抗平原和洞穴生活中的艰难斗争中具有生存价值，最终以我们的遗传构成方式作为我们古老动物方式的残留。

自然段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.’

与这种基因编程概念相对的是，将教师-受试者的行为看作是实验进行的社会环境的结果。正如米尔格拉姆自己指出的那样：“实验中的大多数受试者将他们的行为看作是一个更大的、对社会有益的背景——追求科学真理。心理实验室对于那些在那里工作的人来说具有强烈的合法性，引起他们的信任和自信。例如，在这种环境中，像给受害者电击这样的行为，单独看起来是邪恶的，但在这个环境中具有完全不同的意义。”

自然段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.

因此，根据这种解释，受试者将其独特的个性、个人道德准则与更大的制度结构融合在一起，将忠诚、自我牺牲和纪律等个体属性投入到恶劣的权力机构服务中。

自然段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.