A 几年前，耶鲁大学的Stanley Milgram进行了一项行为心理学试验，这项试验十分有趣但又令试验对象深感不安。40名试验对象分别来自社会各界。试验要测试在对某领导命令做的事情可能产生反感的情况下，这些试验对象是否还愿意执行命令。Milgram向每位在试验中扮演教师角色的志愿者明确地解释，试验是为了崇高的教育事业而进行的，是要测试体罚犯错误的学生是否会对学生的学习能力产生积极的影响。

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.

B Milgram的试验方案是让这些扮演教师角色的试验对象到一个有30个切换开关的控电板前，开关上面分别贴着电压标签。从15伏(轻度电击)开始，每个开关依次增大15伏，一直增大到450伏(危险的严重电击)。然后告诉这些试验对象，学生每回答错一个问题，就施加一次电击，从最低电压开始，随着错误题数的增加，电击强度也依次增加。试验中的学生实际上是Milgram雇佣的演员，他发出各种呻吟、叫喊声并痛苦地扭动身体甚至用污言秽语谩骂试验者和试验本身，来模拟出学生遭受电击后的反应。Milgram让这些扮演教师角色的试验对象不要理会学生的反应，按照控制试验条件的规则，不管电压多高都要直接施加。

C 随着试验的展开，这个学生要故意答错老师提出的问题，从而受到各种级别电击的惩罚，甚至是高达300伏的危险电压或更高电压的电击惩罚。许多扮演教师的试验对象在实施高电压惩罚时犹豫不决，面带疑惑地看着Milgram或者对继续试验颇有微词。一旦遇到这种情况，Milgram就会冷静地向扮演教师的试验对象解释说，不要理会学生请求怜悯的呼喊，继续试验。如果试验对象仍不肯继续试验，Milgram就告诉他们，为了完成试验将试验步骤进行到底是很重要的。如果这样仍不奏效的话，Milgram就会说：“你别无选择，必须继续试验。”Milgram想要找出的是，面对人性和道德对试验规则和条件强烈的反感，有多少扮演教师的试验对象会愿意施加最高电压的电击惩罚。

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.

D 在进行试验之前，Milgram向39名精神科医生解释了他的想法，让他们预测一下普通人群中平均会有多大比例的人愿意施加最高达450伏的电击。这些医生几乎一致认为差不多所有扮演教师的试验对象都会拒绝遵从试验人的命令。这些精神科医生感到大多数扮演教师的试验对象不会施加超过150伏电压的电击，并进一步预测说，只有4％的人会施加300伏以上电压的电击。而且，他们认为只有约千分之一的像疯子一样的人才会施加450伏的电压。

E 实际结果如何呢?60％以上的扮演教师的试验对象一直遵从Milgram的命令，直到施加最高电压450伏的电击。在其他国家进行的重复试验中，愿意遵从命令的试验对象的比例更高，在某个国家甚至高达85％。那些冷静、理性、有学识的人们依靠他们的研究所得出的轻松的结论，与这些面临压力、紧张不安却遵守命令的扮演教师的试验对象在模拟真实生活的实验室中的所作所为竟然存在这么大的差异，我们怎样才能解释这种差异呢?

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.

F 人们第一反应可能会说，一定是试验激发了人内在的某种侵略性动物本能。Milgram试验中那些扮演教师的试验对象正是本能地靠施加电击来向学生发泄他们这种受到压抑的原始冲动。典型的现代社会生物学家甚至会称这种侵略性的本能是作为一种优势特征进化而来的，当我们的祖先在岩洞中和平原上与艰苦的生活作斗争时，这种本能对他们的生存起到了重要的作用。因此，这种本能最终作为远古时人类动物行为的遗留产物融入到我们的基因当中。

G 与这种基因说不同的观点是将那些扮演教师的试验对象的行为看作是进行试验的社会环境所造成的。正如Milgram自己所说：“大多数试验对象从大的背景出发，认为自己的行为是仁慈的，对社会有益的，是在追求科学真理。心理实验室又大力强调此举的合法性，因此使试验参与人员对其产生了信任和信心。像对受害人施加电击这件事，单独看来似乎是恶行，但在这种情况下却有了完全不同的意义。”

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.

H 因此，按这种解释，扮演教师的试验对象是将自己的个性、个人准则和道德准则与更广泛的体制结构结合了起来，使个人的一些特性，如忠诚、自我牺牲和遵守规定，为恶毒的权威体制服务。

I 对于众多扮演教师的试验对象为了一个机构权威人物而愿意放弃他们个人责任感的这种行为，我们有两种完全不同的解释。生物学家、心理学家和人类学家所要解决的问题就是找出这两种截然对立的解释哪种更合理。从本质讲，这是一个当代社会生物学的问题——探索人自身相关基因组成能在多大程度上掌控，或至少说是强烈影响动物和人与环境的交互活动，即他们的行为。换句话说，社会生物学关注的是如何去阐释所有行为的生物学基础。

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.