When they do, it's often in our best interest to have an open discussion about why they

當他們這樣做的時候，我們最好的辦法是公開討論為什麼他們

happened.

發生了。

But, some things are so bad that mainstream culture deems them unspeakable.

但是，有些事情太糟糕了，以至於主流文化認為它們是不可說的。

These are the acts that you don't even want to imagine doing.

這些都是你想都不敢想的行為。

Maybe, you don't believe your capable of doing them.

也許，你不相信你有能力做到這一點。

These acts are what one might call evil.

這些行為就是人們所說的邪惡。

I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that evil was only the product of psychopaths and

如果你認為邪惡只是心理變態者的產物，我也不會覺得奇怪

sadists.

虐待狂。

But, unfortunately, this just isn't so.

但遺憾的是，事實並非如此。

The world witnessed evil during WW2 and, more specifically, the Holocaust.

在二戰期間，世界目睹了邪惡，更具體地說，是大屠殺。

When Adolf Eichmann - one of the main figures responsible for organizing the systematic

當阿道夫-艾希曼--一個對組織有系統的大屠殺負有責任的主要人物之一。

killing of millions - was put on trial, he said that he was just following orders: this

殺害了數百萬人--他說，他只是奉命行事：這。

thought is frightening.

思想是可怕的。

This statement makes you rethink the idea of evil.

這句話讓你重新思考邪惡的概念。

It transforms evil from being the work of a small minority to a product of the vast

它將邪惡從少數人的行為轉變為廣大民眾的產物。

majority.

大多數人。

Perhaps, evil is what happens when people stop thinking for themselves and just obey

也許，邪惡就是當人們不再為自己考慮，而只是服從的時候，會發生的事情

the orders of others.

別人的命令。

If so, the capacity for evil lies within all of us.

如果是這樣，邪惡的能力就在我們每個人的體內。

This is the context in which Stanley Milgram conducted his renowned experiment on obedience;

這是斯坦利-米爾格拉姆進行其著名的服從性實驗的背景。

it's a chilling experiment that reminds us that with the ability for great good comes

這是一個令人心寒的實驗，提醒我們，有能力做大好事的同時，也有能力做小事

the ability for great evil.

大惡之能。

To really understand the Milgram experiments, it helps to split it into two tests: the fake

要想真正理解米爾格拉姆實驗，把它抽成兩個測試是有幫助的：假的

one and the real one.

一個和真正的一個。

Let's start with the fake one.

先說說假的吧。

There are 3 participants: the experimenter, a teacher, and a learner.

有3個參與者：實驗者、教師、學習者。

The subject that Milgram was studying was always given the role of teacher.

米爾格拉姆所研究的課題，始終被賦予了教師的角色。

The learner was an actor that was in on the experiment.

學習者是一個演員，是在實驗中。

The actual study was disguised as a fake study that was said to be testing the effects of

實際的研究被偽裝成了一項虛假的研究，說是測試效果。

punishment on learning.

對學習的懲罰。

Specifically, they were testing the effects of administering electric shocks on a learner's

具體來說，他們是在測試施以電擊對學習者的影響。

ability to memorize a list of word-pairs.

記憶單詞對的能力。

For example, green-flower or couch-potato.

比如，青花或沙發洋芋。

The subject was tasked with teaching the learner this list.

學科的任務是教學習者這個單子。

The subject would go through the list once and then read off one of the words in a pair.

課題組會把清單看一遍，然後把其中的一個詞對讀下來。

If the learner guessed the word correctly, the subject would move on to the next pair.

如果學習者猜對了這個詞，主體就會進入下一對。

However, if they guessed incorrectly, the subject was supposed to administer an electric

然而，如果他們猜錯了，受試者應該施以電擊。

shock.

震驚。

Shocks went up in 15V increments all the way up until 450V.

震動以15V遞增，一直到450V。

There were also corresponding labels indicating the intensity of shocks ranging from slight

也有相應的標籤表示衝擊的強度，從輕微的衝擊到輕微的衝擊。

shock to simply XXX.

衝擊到單純的XXX。

The real test underlying this fake one was to see how far subjects would be willing to

這個假的測試背後真正的測試是看被試者願意到什麼程度。

go in administering shocks before they stopped.

在施以電擊後，他們才停止。

At the shock level of 300V, the subject would hear the learner pounding on the wall and

在300V的衝擊水準下，受試者會聽到學習者敲打牆壁的聲音，並且

begin refusing to answer.

開始拒絕回答。

A second pound was heard at 315V.

在315V的電壓下，聽到第二聲重擊。

This test was designed to put the subject in a tug of war between obeying their own

這個測試的目的是讓受試者在服從自己的拉鋸戰中

morals and obeying an authority figure.

道德和服從權威人物。

If the subject began hesitating, the experimenter used 1 of 4 prods to get him to continue.

如果受試者開始猶豫不決，實驗者就用4個道具中的1個來讓他繼續。

They ranged in intensity from simple requests to orders.

它們的強度從簡單的請求到命令不等。

The results of the test were shocking: 65% of participants administered the maximum level

測試的結果令人震驚：65%的參與者進行了最大程度的。

of shocks.

的衝擊。

All participants obeyed until 300V.

在300V之前，所有參與者都服從。

Various forms of Milgram's experiment have been replicated several times and continue

米爾格朗姆的各種形式的實驗已經被多次複製，並繼續進行著

to produce similar results.

以產生類似的結果。

Although, modifying different conditions seems to produce varying levels of obedience.

雖然，修改不同的條件似乎會產生不同程度的服從性。

After going through a lot of the literature, the question isn't do we obey, but when

在經歷了很多文獻之後，問題不是我們要不要服從，而是當

and why ?

為什麼？

I think the best place to start is with Milgram's interpretation of the experiment.

我認為最好的起點是米爾格拉姆對實驗的解釋。

But, before you can understand it, you have to understand his view of obedience as a natural

但是，在你理解它之前，你必須理解他對服從的看法是一種自然的

phenomenon.

現象。

Milgram believed that humans evolved the capacity to organize into social hierarchies because

米爾格拉姆認為，人類之所以進化出組織成社會等級的能力，是因為

it was a huge survival advantage.

這是一個巨大的生存優勢。

Instead of competing as individuals, we could work together as a powerful group.

與其作為個人競爭，不如作為一個強大的團體共同合作。

In order to create these hierarchies, humans must be capable of giving up control to an

為了創造這些等級制度，人類必須有能力將控制權交給一個。

external source: this could be another person or an idea.

外部來源：這可能是另一個人或一個想法。

If two independent people give up control to a third person, the third person can coordinate

如果兩個獨立的人把控制權交給第三個人，第三個人可以協調

the entire group.

整個集團。

For example, imagine a group of cars giving up control to the commands of a traffic cop.

例如，想象一群汽車放棄控制權，聽從交警的指揮。

By giving up their personal autonomy, traffic can flow in a more coordinated fashion.

放棄個人的自主權，交通就可以更加協調地流動。

However, if they all act on their own, traffic will flow less efficiently and accidents are

但是，如果他們都各自為政，交通效率就會降低，事故就會發生。

more likely to happen.

更有可能發生。

There are social hierarchies all around you.

在你身邊有社會等級制度。

When you enter a hierarchy, Milgram believed that you'd undergo a critical shift in mindset

米爾格拉姆認為，當你進入一個等級制度後，你的思維方式會發生關鍵性的轉變。

from that of an autonomous individual to that of an agent.

從一個自主的個體到一個代理的個體。

When you enter a hierarchy and become an agent, you no longer feel responsible for your actions

當你進入一個層次，成為一個代理，你不再覺得自己的行為是負責任的。

but responsible to the one above you.

但要對你上面的人負責。

This new mindset is known as the agentic state.

這種新的思維方式被稱為代理人狀態。

To understand this state, it helps to separate it into a few components: the capacity for

要理解這種狀態，把它抽成幾個部分是有幫助的：能力的。

agency, why we become an agent, the features of an agent, and what keeps us from exiting

代理，為什麼我們會成為代理，代理的特點，以及是什麼讓我們無法退出。

the agentic state.

代理狀態。

Milgram argues that the agentic state has been socialized in us through family, school,

米爾格拉姆認為，代理人狀態已經通過家庭、學校在我們身上社會化了。

and work because these environments value obedience, reward us for it and punish us

和工作，因為這些環境重視服從，獎勵我們服從，懲罰我們服從

for disobedience.

因為不聽話。

So, why would you choose to become an agent?

那麼，你為什麼會選擇做代理呢？

Imagine that you're taking part in this experiment.

想象一下，你正在參加這個實驗。

You walk into the room.

你走進房間。

What do you do?

你是做什麼的？

If you want to the experiment to run effectively, you need to cooperate with the group.

如果你想讓實驗有效地進行，你需要與小組合作。

Recall that one of the most effective ways to coordinate a group is to designate a leader.

回顧一下，協調一個小組最有效的方法之一是指定一個領袖。

Someone has to be in charge, right?

總得有人負責吧？

Since this is a new hierarchy that you're entering into, you know that you're not

由於這是一個新的層次結構，你要進入的，你知道你不是。

in charge.

負責。

You assign that role to the experimenter because you perceive them to be a “legitimate authority”.

你把這個角色分配給實驗者，是因為你認為他們是一個 "合法的權威"。

You willingly enter this hierarchy because it has a guiding ideology that you believe

你心甘情願地進入這個等級制度，是因為它有一個你認為的指導思想。

in and would be willing to further: progress & science.

中，並願意進一步：進步與科學。

Lastly, the experimenter makes demands of you that are appropriate for the hierarchy

最後，實驗者對你提出適合層次的要求

that you're in.

你在。

He makes demands with regards to the experiment and not unrelated things.

他對實驗提出的要求，並不是不相關的事情。

He doesn't tell you what you eat for dinner.

他不會告訴你晚餐吃什麼。

All of these factors combined allow you to willingly accept the role of an agent.

所有這些因素綜合在一起，讓你心甘情願地接受代理的角色。

Now that we have become an agent, what does this shift in mindset entail?

現在我們已經成為了一名代理人，這種思維方式的轉變需要什麼呢？

When we are in the hierarchy we tend to value the word of our superiors more than our inferiors.

當我們身處等級制度中時，我們往往更看重上級的話，而不是下級。

Continuing our example, you're not going to take advice from the learner on how to

繼續我們的例子，你不打算接受學習者的建議，如何進行

conduct the experiment.

進行實驗。

That's because you see him at an equal or lower position on the hierarchy.

那是因為你看到他在等級制度上處於同等或較低的位置。

We also reinterpret our actions with regards to the mission of the hierarchy - for example,

我們也會根據上級的任務重新解釋我們的行為--比如。

scientific progress.

科學進步；

Keep in mind that we have willingly entered this hierarchy as an agent with a belief in

請記住，我們已經心甘情願地進入了這個等級制度，作為一個代理人，我們有一個信念。

its guiding mission.

其指導任務，

This leads to the most important feature of being an agent: we no longer feel responsible

這就導致了作為代理人最重要的特點：我們不再覺得自己有責任感

for our actions but responsible to carrying out the wishes of the one above us.

為我們的行為負責，但負責執行我們上面的人的願望。

However, once we've entered the agentic state, what keeps us there?

然而，當我們進入代理狀態後，是什麼讓我們留在那裡？

If we hear the pounding and feel we are doing something morally wrong, why can't we leave?

如果我們聽到敲擊聲，覺得自己做了一件道德上錯誤的事情，為什麼不能離開？

Milgram's first reason is consistency.

米爾格拉姆的第一個理由是一致性。

To admit that our current action is wrong would mean that we have to admit that all

承認我們目前的行動是錯誤的，就意味著我們必須承認所有的

of our actions leading up to this point were wrong.

我們在這之前的行動是錯誤的。

That is a very tough pill to swallow and most people would rather not do it.

這是一個非常難受的藥丸，大多數人寧可不做。

The second reason is that we feel an obligation to the experimenter.

第二個原因是，我們覺得對實驗者有義務。

We already made a commitment to help him and we want to uphold it.

我們已經承諾要幫助他，我們要維護它。

The third reason is that all participants entered and began this experiment under a

第三個原因是所有的參與者都是在一個下進入並開始這個實驗的。

specific situational definition: we acknowledged that the authority was legitimate, knew what

具體情境定義：我們承認該權力是合法的，知道什麼是 "合法"。

he was doing, and deserved to be higher up in the hierarchy than us.

他在做的事情，理應比我們更高的層次。

Violating this, or any, socially agreed upon situational definition produces feelings of

違反這個或任何社會商定的情境定義，會讓人感覺到

awkwardness and discomfort because we are disrupting the social order.

尷尬和不舒服，因為我們破壞了社會秩序。

Lastly, there are feelings of anxiety associated with disobeying an authority figure.

最後，不服從權威人士的要求，會有焦慮感。

We have been socialized to respect authority figures and anticipating that we may have

我們已經被社會化了，要尊重權威人士，並預計到我們可能有

to disobey and disrupt the social order makes us anxious.

違抗和破壞社會秩序，讓我們感到焦慮。

However, alternative studies shine light on different aspects of Milgram's studies.

然而，另類的研究卻讓人看到了米爾格拉姆研究的不同方面。

Some studies suggest something along the lines of a trusted expert that motivates subjects

一些研究表明，一個值得信賴的專家，可以激勵被試者的行為

to continue obeying.

以繼續服從。

They believed that they could trust that the scientist knew more about the experiment than

他們認為，他們可以相信，科學家對實驗的瞭解要比

they did or that they could trust that a scientist would act responsibly.

或他們可以相信科學家會負責任地行事。

Based on an individuals life experience, these would be reasonable beliefs to hold.

根據個人的生活經驗，這些都是合理的信念。

The experimenter had even told participants that the shocks were “painful but not dangerous”.

實驗者甚至曾告訴參與者，這種衝擊 "很痛苦，但並不危險"。

So, the real reason they continued was because they didn't believe that the learner was

所以，他們繼續下去的真正原因是他們不相信學習者是

actually in any real danger.

實際上，在任何真正的危險。

Other studies suggest that participants continued to obey because they believed that they were

其他研究表明，參與者之所以繼續服從，是因為他們認為他們是

agents of a worthy ideology.

一個有價值的意識形態的代理人。

Specifically, one study found that of the four prods that Milgram used, the one most

具體來說，有研究發現，在米爾格拉姆使用的四種探針中，最。

resembling an order was the least effective and the one most resembling an appeal to science

類似於命令的方法最不有效，而最類似於呼籲科學的方法最有效。

was the most effective.

是最有效的。

In this case, it would seem that subjects are actually motivated by the belief that

在這種情況下，似乎被試者實際上是出於這樣的信念，即

their actions were for the benefit of science.

他們的行動是為了科學的利益。

In both alternative explanations, participants would believe that they were doing the right

在這兩種替代解釋中，參與者都會認為他們做的是正確的。

thing.

的事情。

Alternatively, some people believe that Milgram's experiments were nothing but theatre and invalid

也有人認為，米爾格拉姆的實驗不過是戲劇，是無效的。

as a scientific experiment.

作為一個科學實驗。

On the otherhand, many believe that Milgram did stumble upon something significant but

另一方面，許多人認為，米爾格拉姆確實偶然發現了一些重要的東西，但。

there isn't universal agreement over exactly what that is.

沒有普遍的一致意見 在究竟是什麼。

We can't make a jump from Milgram's results to explaining the actions of those involved

我們不能從米爾格拉姆的結果跳到解釋相關人員的行為上

in the Holocaust.

在大屠殺中。

The experiment itself was conducted in a lab setting and so we have to be careful about

實驗本身是在實驗室的環境下進行的，所以我們要注意的是

interpreting those results with regards to real life.

解釋這些結果與現實生活有關。

However, it does provide us with a lot of food for thought about how different situations

然而，它確實為我們提供了很多關於不同情況下的思考。

can affect the actions we take.

可以影響我們的行動。

Milgram's experiments serve as a critical reminder that a potential monster lies deep

米爾格蘭姆的實驗是一個重要的提醒，潛在的怪物深藏不露。

within each of us and it would be in our best interest to be mindful of that.

在我們每個人的內心深處，注意到這一點對我們是最有利的。

But, let me know your thoughts.

但是，讓我知道你的想法。

Why do you

你為什麼要

think we obey?

你以為我們會聽話嗎？