IELTS_Reading_C5T1P2_Nature or Nurture?

Nature or Nurture?

• 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.

许多年前，一个最让人着迷又使人不安的行为心理学实验，耶鲁大学的Stanley Milgram测试了来自各行各业的40名受试者的意愿 关于服从一个领导者给出的指令 在某种情况下 受试者可能感到个人厌恶对于他们被要求去做的行为。具体来说，Milgram告诉每个扮演教师志愿者，这项实验是为了崇高的教育事业，被设计为测试是否惩罚学生的错误会对学生的学习能力有积极的影响。

• 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.

Milgram的实验设置包含了将教师扮演者放在 一组 30个按钮前，标签 以15伏为一个阶段从‘15伏电击（轻微电击）’到‘450伏（危险-严重电击）’。教师扮演者被告知无论何时学生给出了问题的错误答案，需要 执行 电击，从最低的阶段开始，随着每一个错误答案而增加严重程度。所谓的“学生”实际上是米尔格拉姆雇佣的一名演员，通过发出一系列呻吟、尖叫和扭动来模拟接受电击，伴随着 各种各样的声明和** 咒骂** ，谴责实验和实验者。

• 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.

随着实验展开，学生故意给出错误的答案 对于老师提出的问题，因此带来了更多的电机惩罚，甚至到了300伏以上危险的程度，许多教师扮演者在操作更高的惩罚时犹豫不决，给Milgram询问的眼神和/或者抱怨继续试验。在这些情况下，Milgram冷静的解释教师的任务是无视学生的求饶并且继续试验。如果教授扮演者仍然不愿意继续，Milgram说为了实验目的，将程序进行到底是重要的 。他最后的争辩是，‘你没有别的选择，你必须继续。’Milgram想要发现的是愿意操作最高等级电击的教师数量，即便面对违反实验规则和条件的强烈的个人和道德厌恶。

• 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.

在开始实验之前，Milgram向一群39个心理学家解释了他的想法，并让他们预测平均百分数 关于人群中的普通人 会愿意操作450伏最高等级的电击。压倒性的 共识是几乎所有教师扮演者会拒绝服从实验员。心理学家们认为‘大部分扮演者无法到150伏’，他们随后预测只有4%的人会到300伏。另外，他们认为只有大约千分之一的疯狂边缘才会给出450伏的最高电击。

• 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?

真实结果是什么呢？啊，超过60%的教师扮演者一直服从M达到了450伏的限额！这个实验在其他国家重复，顺从的教师半夜这比例甚至更高，在一个国家达到了85%。我们怎么解释在冷静、理智的、有知识的人在舒服的学习环境中 预测，和在压力下、慌张的、但是合作的教师在真实生活的实验室里实际做的巨大的差异呢？

• 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. 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.

第一个推测可能是讨论这一定是某种 天生的动物攻击本能被这个实验激活，Milgram的教师扮演者只是跟随了基因的需要去 释放这被压抑的原始的冲动给学生 通过对执行电击。一个现代硬核社会行为学家可能甚至宣称这攻击本能进化成了有利的特点，对我们的祖先又求生价值 在他们和艰难生活的斗争中 在平原和在洞穴里，最终找到了方法进入我们的基因编造作为我们祖先动物行为的残余物。

• 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.’

一个可代替的基因编程理论是看见教师扮演者的行为作为进行实验的社会环境的结果。像Milgram他自己指出的，‘大部分实验受试者将他们在大背景下的行为视作仁慈的以及对社会是有用的，-对科学真相的追求。心理学实验室有强有力的声明对于合法性和引起真相和自信 在这些于此行动人身上。一个行为例如电击受害者，单独看是邪恶的，获得完全不用的意义 当发生在这中设置的时候。

• 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，在这个解释中，受试者将他们独一无二个性和个人道德准则与更大的机构制度融合，将个人财产例如忠诚、自我牺牲和自制围绕权威恶毒的系统服务周围。（将个人属性如忠诚、自我牺牲和纪律交给恶意的权威体系。）

• 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.

这里我们有两个完全不同的解释，对于为什么很多教师扮演者愿意放弃他们的个人责任感 ~~ 为了一个机构权威人物~~。生物学家、心理学家和人类学家的问题是分清这两个截然对立的解释哪一个是更合理的。事实上，这是现代社会行为学的问题-发现硬连线遗传编程 在多大程度上起着决定作用，或者至少是强烈的偏见，动物和人类与环境的互动，这是，他们的行为。换言之，社会生物学家关心阐明所有行为的生物学基础。

14.a biological explanation of the teacher-subjects’ behaviour
15.the explanation Milgram gave the teacher-subjects for the experiment
16.the identity of the pupils
17.the expected statistical outcome
18.the general aim of sociobiological study
19.the way Milgram persuaded the teacher-subjects to continue

一个关于教师扮演者生物学的解释
Milgram给教师扮演者关于实验的解释
学生的身份
希望的统计结果
社会行为学研究的主要目的
Milgram说服教师扮演者继续的方法
-15和19主题相近，可能位置靠的比较近。匹配题需要泛读全文，不能不读。要学会正确加速跳过，提升阅读速度

20The teacher-subjects were told that they were testing whether
A.a 450-volt shock was dangerous.
B.punishment helps learning.
C.the pupils were honest.
D.they were suited to teaching.

21The teacher-subjects were instructed to
A.stop when a pupil asked them to.
B.denounce pupils who made mistakes.
C.reduce the shock level after a correct answer.
D.give punishment according to a rule.

22Before the experiment took place the psychiatrists
A.believed that a shock of 150 volts was too dangerous.
B.failed to agree on how the teacher-subjects would respond to instructions.
C.underestimated the teacher-subjects’ willingness to comply with experimental procedure.
D.thought that many of the teacher-subjects would administer a shock of 450 volts.

23 Several of the subjects were psychology students at Yale University.
24Some people may believe that the teacher-subjects’ behaviour could be explained as a positive survival mechanism.
25In a sociological explanation, personal values are more powerful than authority.
26Milgram’s experiment solves an important question in sociobiology.

23有几名受试者是耶鲁大学心理学学生
25在社会学解释中，个人价值比权威更有力
26Milgram的实验解决了一个社会行为学重要的问题。