A A few years ago, in one of the most fascinating and disturbing experiments in behavioural psychology. A. 几年前，有一个关于行为心理学的实验非常吸引人，也非常让人不安。 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. 实验中，耶鲁大学的 Stanley Milgram 对来自各行各业的实验对象进行测试，以探明在领导让他们做一些他们反感的事情时是否乐意听从“领导”的指示。 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. 具体说来，就是 Milgram 对每一位扮演“教师”的志愿者说，这个实验是出于高尚的教育目的的，还说实验是设计用来测试惩罚学生的错误到底会不会对学生的学习能力有正面影响。

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. B. Milgram 的实验方案包括，将一个面板放置在“教师”面前，面板上有 30 个开关，开关上贴着从“15 伏电压（轻微电击）”到“450 伏电压（严重电击）”的标签，跨度为 15 伏。 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. “教师”们被告知，当学生的回答有误时，就要被电击，从强度最低的开关开始，每次连续回答错误一个问题，电击强度就要增加。 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. 那些“学生”实际上是 Milgram 请来的演员，这些人会发出各种程度的呻吟、尖叫、挣扎，还用各种粗话来指责实验本身和实验者，以此来假装受到电击。 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. Milgram 让“教师”忽略“学生”的各种反应，并且按当时的实验要求施加电压。

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. C. 随着实验的展开，学生会故意对老师提出的问题给出错误的答案，从来带来各种电击作为惩罚，即便到了 300 伏以上的电压，学生依然如故。 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. 很多老师在施加高伏电压时都有所犹豫，并且用质问的表情看着 Milgram 或者质问他到底要不要继续下去。 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. 这种情况下，Milgram 会冷静地解释说，教师应该忽视学生们求饶的喊叫，继续实验。 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. 如果老师仍然不肯继续实验，Milgram 会说，由于实验的原因，一定要按部就班地把实验做完。 His final argument was, 'You have no other choice. You must go on'. 他最后干脆会说“你别无选择，只能继续进行”。 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. Milgram 想要搞清在个人和道德因素在实验规则和条件下发生巨变时，到底有多少“老师”会施加最高级别的电击。

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. D. 在实施实验之前，Milgram 把他的想法解释给 39 位精神病学家听，并且让他们预测在普通人中，到底有多少比例的人愿意施加 450 伏的最高电击。 The overwhelming consensus was that virtually all the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. 一边倒的意见是，他们认为全部的老师都不会听从实验者的指令。 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. 精神病学家们认为“大部分实验对象不会施加超过 150 伏的电压”，而且他们进一步预测道，只有 4%的人会施加超过 300 伏的电压。 Furthermore, they thought that only a lunatic fringe of about one in 1000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts. 另外，他们还认为，1 000 个人里面只会有一人疯狂到愿意施加 450 伏的最高电压的地步。

E What were the actual results? E. 实际结果如何呢？ Well, over 60 per cent of the teacher-subjects continued to obey Milgram up to the 450-volt limit! 超过六成的“老师”把实验进行到了 450 伏的阶段。 In repetitions of the experiment in other countries, the percentage of obedient teacher-subjects was even higher, reaching 85 per cent in one country. 在其他国家进行的相同实验中，这一比例甚至更高，在某个国家甚至达到了 85%。 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? 冷静、理智且有学识的人在研究中的预测，与倍感压力、慌张而不得不合作的“老师”们在实验室中的实际表现差距如此之大，该如何解释呢？

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. F. 你可能最先想到的就是争论说，一定是某种与生俱来的动物性的进攻意识被实验激发了出来；你还会说，Milgram 的实验对象只是出于基因的需要，将内心隐藏已久的原始的暴力欲望通过电击的形式施加到了学生身上。 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. 一位当代主要的社会生物学家甚至声称，这种进攻性本能进化成了一种有利特征，该特征对于我们祖先的生存颇具价值，因为他们要对抗平原和洞穴生活中的种种困难，最终它通过某种方式保存在我们的基因结构当中，这是我们久远的动物本性的残留。

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. G. 除了这种将原因归结到基因方面的解读，还有一种观点认为，“教师”们的反应是实验所处的社会环境所导致的结果。 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. 正如 Milgram 自己指出的那样，“大部分研究对象从更大的角度（寻找科学真相）看待他们自身的行为，认为这样做对社会是仁慈和有益的。 The psychological laboratory has a strong claim to legitimacy and evokes trust and confidence in those who perform there. 心理学实验室对于实验的合理性做出了清晰的声明，从而博得了参与实验的人的信任和信心。 An action such as shocking a victim, which in isolation appears evil, acquires a completely different meaning when placed in this setting.' 类似于电击这样的行为，单独看来似乎狠毒，但是在这个大前提下，却获得了完全不同的意义。

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. H. 因此，在这一解释存在的前提下，研究对象将其自身独特的性格、个人和道德标准与更大的制度架构融合在了一起，他们将个人的特点（如忠实度、自我牺牲和自律等）屈就于用来服务恶意的权威系统。

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. I. 我们有两个截然不同的解释用来说明，为什么这么多研究对象乐意在学术权威面前放弃他们个人的责任观。 The problem for biologists, psychologists and anthropologists is to sort out which of these two polar explanations is more plausible. 生物学家、心理学家和人类学家的工作就是要区分两种极端的解释到底哪个更可信。 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. 从本质上讲，这是现代社会生物学的研究范畴，其目的就是要找出编排缜密的基因程序对于人和动物与环境间的相互作用（即人和动物的行为）到底有何种程度的影响，或者说，使之产生何种程度的偏移。 Put another way, sociobiology is concerned with elucidating the biological basis of all behaviour. 换句话说，社会生物学关心的是如何阐明所有行为的生物学基础。