上海新航道雅思小編第一時(shí)間給大家?guī)砹藙?Test1雅思閱讀Passage2譯文-Nature or Nurture?希望可以幫助廣大雅思考生輕松備考雅思。

  劍5Test1雅思閱讀Passage2譯文-Nature or Nurture?

  是先天本性還是后天控制?

  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.

  A 幾年前，耶魯大學(xué)的Stanley Milgram進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)行為心理學(xué)試驗(yàn)，這項(xiàng)試驗(yàn)十分有趣但又令試驗(yàn)對(duì)象深感不安。40名試驗(yàn)對(duì)象分別來自社會(huì)各界。試驗(yàn)要測(cè)試在對(duì)某領(lǐng)導(dǎo)命令做的事情可能產(chǎn)生反感的情況下，這些試驗(yàn)對(duì)象是否愿意執(zhí)行命令。Milgram向每位在試驗(yàn)中扮演教師角色的志愿者明確地解釋，試驗(yàn)是為了崇高的教育事業(yè)而進(jìn)行的，是要測(cè)試體罰犯錯(cuò)誤的學(xué)生是否會(huì)對(duì)學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)能力產(chǎn)生積極的影響。

  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 writings 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.

  B Milgram的試驗(yàn)方案是讓這些扮演教師角色的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象到一個(gè)有30個(gè)切換開關(guān)的控電板前，開關(guān)上面分別貼著電壓標(biāo)簽，從15伏(輕度電擊)開始，每個(gè)開關(guān)依次增大15伏，一直增大到450伏(危險(xiǎn)的嚴(yán)重電擊)。然后告訴這些試驗(yàn)對(duì)象，學(xué)生每回答錯(cuò)一個(gè)問題，就施加一次電擊, 從最低電壓開始，隨著錯(cuò)誤題數(shù)的增加，電擊強(qiáng)度也依次增加。試驗(yàn)中的學(xué)生實(shí)際上是Mifgram雇傭的演員，他發(fā)出各種呻吟、叫喊聲并痛苦地扭動(dòng)身體甚至用污言移語(yǔ)謾罵試驗(yàn)者和試驗(yàn)本身，來模擬出學(xué)生遭受電擊后的反應(yīng)Milgram讓這些扮演教師角色的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象不要理會(huì)學(xué)生的反應(yīng)，按照控制試驗(yàn)條件的規(guī)則，不管電壓多髙都要直接施加。

  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.

  C 隨著試驗(yàn)的展開，這個(gè)學(xué)生要故意答錯(cuò)老師提出的問題，從而受到各種級(jí)別電擊的懲罰，甚至是高達(dá)300伏的危險(xiǎn)電壓或更高電壓的電擊懲罰。許多扮演教師的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象在實(shí)施高電壓懲罰時(shí)猶豫不決，面帶疑惑地看著Milgram或者對(duì)繼續(xù)試驗(yàn)頗有微詞。一旦遇到這種情況，Milgram就會(huì)冷靜地向扮演教師的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象解釋說，不要理會(huì)學(xué)生請(qǐng)求憐憫的呼喊，繼續(xù)試驗(yàn)。如果試驗(yàn)對(duì)象仍不肯繼續(xù)試驗(yàn)，Milgram就告訴他們，為了完成試驗(yàn)將試驗(yàn)步驟進(jìn)行到底是很重要的。如果這樣仍不奏效的話, Milgram就會(huì)說：“你別無(wú)選擇，必須繼續(xù)試驗(yàn)。”Milgram想要找出的是，面對(duì)人性和道德對(duì)試驗(yàn)規(guī)則和條件強(qiáng)烈的反感，有多少扮演教師的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象會(huì)愿意施加最高電壓的電擊懲罰。

  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.

  D 在進(jìn)行試驗(yàn)之前， Milgram向39名精神科醫(yī)生解釋了他的想法，讓他們預(yù)測(cè)一下普通人群中平均會(huì)有多大比例的人愿意施加最高達(dá)450伏的電擊。這些醫(yī)生幾乎一致認(rèn)為差不多所有扮演教師的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象都會(huì)拒絕遵從試驗(yàn)人的命令。這些精神科醫(yī)生感到大多數(shù)扮演教師的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象不會(huì)施加超過150伏電壓的電擊，并進(jìn)一步預(yù)測(cè)說，只有4%的人會(huì)施力P300伏以上電壓的電擊。而且，他們認(rèn)為只有約千分之一的像瘋子一樣的人才會(huì)施加450伏的電壓。

  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?

  E 實(shí)際結(jié)果如何呢? 60%以上的扮演教師的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象一直遵從Milgram的命令，直到施加最高電壓450伏的電擊。在其他國(guó)家進(jìn)行的重復(fù)試驗(yàn)中，愿意遵從命令的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象的比例更髙, 在某個(gè)國(guó)家：甚至髙達(dá)85%。那些冷靜、理性、有學(xué)識(shí)的人們依靠他們的研究所得出的輕松的結(jié)論，與這些面臨壓力、緊張不安卻遵守命令的扮演教師的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象在模擬真實(shí)生活的實(shí)驗(yàn)室中的所作所為竟然存在這么大的差異，我們?cè)鯓硬拍芙忉屵@種差異呢?

  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 teache-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.

  F人們第一反應(yīng)可能會(huì)說，一定是試驗(yàn)激發(fā)了人內(nèi)在的某種侵略性動(dòng)物本能。Milgram試驗(yàn)中那些扮演教師的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象正是本能地靠施加電擊來向?qū)W生發(fā)泄他們這種受到壓抑的原始沖動(dòng)。典型的現(xiàn)代社會(huì)生物學(xué)家甚至?xí)Q這種侵略性的本能是作為一種優(yōu)勢(shì)特征進(jìn)化而來的，當(dāng)我們的祖先在巖洞中和平原上與艱苦的生活作斗爭(zhēng)時(shí)，這種本能對(duì)他們的生存起到了重要的作用。因此，這種本能最終作為遠(yuǎn)古時(shí)人類動(dòng)物行為的遺留產(chǎn)物融人到我們的基因當(dāng)中。

  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.’

  G 與這種基因說不同的觀點(diǎn)是將那些扮演教師的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象的行為看作是進(jìn)行試驗(yàn)的社會(huì)環(huán)境所造成的。正如Milgram自己所說：“大多數(shù)試驗(yàn)對(duì)象從大的背景出發(fā)，認(rèn)為自己的行為是仁慈的，對(duì)社會(huì)有益的，是在追求科學(xué)真理。心理實(shí)驗(yàn)室又大力強(qiáng)調(diào)此舉的合法性，因此使試驗(yàn)參與人員對(duì)其產(chǎn)生了信任和信心。像對(duì)受害人施加電擊這件事，單獨(dú)看來似乎是惡行，但在這種情況下卻有了完全不同的意義。”

  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，按這種解釋，扮演教師的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象是將自己的個(gè)性、個(gè)人準(zhǔn)則和道德準(zhǔn)則與更廣泛的體制結(jié)構(gòu)結(jié)合了起來，使個(gè)人的一些特性，如忠誠(chéng)、自我犧牲和遵守規(guī)定，為惡毒的權(quán)威體制服務(wù)。

  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.

  I對(duì)于眾多扮演教師的試驗(yàn)對(duì)象為了一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)權(quán)威人物而愿意放棄他們個(gè)人責(zé)任感的這種行為，我們有兩種完全不同的解釋。生物學(xué)家、心理學(xué)家和人類學(xué)家所要解決的問題就是找出這兩種截然對(duì)立的解釋哪種更合理。從本質(zhì)講，這是一個(gè)當(dāng)代社會(huì)生物學(xué)的問題一探索人自身相關(guān)基因組成能在多大程度上掌控，或至少說是強(qiáng)烈影響動(dòng)物和人與環(huán)境的交互活動(dòng)，即他們的行為。換句話說，社會(huì)生物學(xué)關(guān)注的是如何去闡釋所有行為的生物學(xué)基礎(chǔ)。

  以上就是小編為大家?guī)黻P(guān)于《劍橋雅思5真題》閱讀部分供大家閱讀參考，新航道雅思資料頻道將第一時(shí)間為考生發(fā)布最全、最新、最專業(yè)的雅思資訊及雅思考試資料及機(jī)經(jīng).