2022年12月四级第3套长篇阅读匹配原文翻译及答案

A) A few years ago I found myself teaching a university class on evil. It was for third-year criminology students to help them contextualize theory and research within controversial current topics. It was a huge success. The debates were heated and interesting. I could see people's views change within the course of a single lecture. Over the past 13 years, as a student, lecturer and researcher, I've enjoyed discussing the science of evil with anyone willing to listen. What I like most is destroying the cliche (陈词滥调) of good and evil, and replacing them with scientific insight. We need a more informed way of discussing behavior that at first we cannot, or should not, begin to understand.

几年前，我发现自己在教授一门关于邪恶的大学课程。这是为犯罪学大三学生开设的，旨在帮助他们将理论和研究置于有争议的当代话题中进行语境化。课程取得了巨大成功。辩论激烈而有趣。我能看到在单次讲座中人们观点的变化。在过去的13年里，作为学生、讲师和研究员，我享受与任何愿意倾听的人讨论邪恶的科学。我最喜欢的是打破关于善与恶的陈词滥调，并用科学见解取而代之。我们需要一种更知情的方式来讨论那些我们最初无法或不应理解的行为。

B) Without understanding, we risk dehumanizing others, writing off human beings simply because we don't comprehend them. We must try to understand what we have labeled evil. We tend to think evil is something that other people are. We think of ourselves as "good people", and even when we do morally wrong things, we understand the context of our decisions. With others, however, it is far easier to write them off. If their actions deviate (偏离) substantially from what we consider acceptable, we may label them evil. We need to be careful with this. Calling someone evil is often similar to saying they cannot change, and perhaps aren't even a human at all. However, when you actually go monster-hunting, and you look deeply at the people behind shocking behavior, you may be surprised.

缺乏理解，我们冒着非人化他人的风险，仅仅因为我们不理解他们就否定他们。我们必须试图理解我们贴上邪恶标签的事物。我们倾向于认为邪恶是别人的事情。我们认为自己是“好人”，即使我们做了道德上错误的事情，我们也理解自己决策的语境。然而，对于他人，否定他们要容易得多。如果他们的行为在很大程度上偏离我们认为可接受的范围，我们可能会称他们为邪恶。我们需要对此谨慎。称某人为邪恶通常类似于说他们无法改变，甚至可能根本不是人。然而，当你真正去猎捕怪物，并深入审视那些令人震惊行为背后的人时，你可能会感到惊讶。

C) As a child I used to love the Scooby-Doo cartoons. Arriving in their "Mystery Machine", the gang would have to find a monster who was terrorizing a neighborhood. They would run around looking for clues and at the end unmask the bad guy. It was always a normal person in a costume. There were no monsters. Like the Scooby crew, we may find ourselves hunting for an easy fix, one word for people who do bad things. But if we take a good look, the word 'evil' is insufficient—there are no simple explanations for why humans do bad things: instead there are many, and they are all marvelously different.

小时候我喜欢史酷比卡通片。他们乘坐“神秘机器”到达，一群人必须找到一个恐吓社区的怪物。他们会四处寻找线索，最后揭露坏人。总是一个穿着戏服的普通人。没有怪物。像史酷比团队一样，我们可能发现自己在寻求简单的解决办法，用一个词来描述做坏事的人。但如果我们仔细看，“邪恶”一词是不够的——对于人类为什么做坏事没有简单的解释：相反，有许多解释，而且它们都奇妙地不同。

D) Evil is typically referred to when there is deviance from social norms: formal deviance is the violation of laws, like theft, murder, and attacks, while informal deviance involves violations of social norms, like lying. Evil behavior is typically thought to embrace one or both forms. However, deviance can also describe a behavior that simply differs from the norm.

邪恶通常指的是偏离社会规范：正式偏离是违反法律，如盗窃、谋杀和攻击，而非正式偏离涉及违反社会规范，如撒谎。邪恶行为通常被认为包含一种或两种形式。然而，偏离也可以描述一种简单不同于规范的行为。

E) Perhaps this is where we can find the good side of our bad side. Deviating from the norm can make us villains (恶棍), but it can also make us heroes. A child deviates from social pressures when they stand up for another child being bullied in school. A soldier deviates when they choose not to follow orders to kill an innocent civilian. An employee in a big tech company deviates when they expose its wrongdoings.

也许这就是我们能找到我们坏的一面中的好的一面的地方。偏离规范可以使我们成为恶棍，但也可以使我们成为英雄。一个孩子在学校为另一个被欺负的孩子挺身而出时，就偏离了社会压力。一个士兵选择不服从命令杀害无辜平民时，就偏离了规范。一家大型科技公司的员工在揭露其不当行为时，就偏离了规范。

F) Creativity is also a deviation. Here, too, things are complex. Thinking creatively has given us modern medicine, technology and modern political structures, but it has also given us poison and nuclear weapons. Great benefit and great harm can come from the same human tendency.

创造性也是一种偏离。这里，事情也很复杂。创造性思维给了我们现代医学、技术和现代政治结构，但也给了我们毒药和核武器。巨大的益处和巨大的伤害可能来自同一种人类倾向。

G) In a research paper, Evil Genius, published in 2014, the behavioral scientists Francesca Gino and Scott Wiltermuth wanted to examine whether people who behave unethically in one task are more creative than others on a subsequent task, even after controlling for differences in baseline creative skills. The unethical behavior they chose was dishonesty.

在2014年发表的研究论文《邪恶天才》中，行为科学家Francesca Gino和Scott Wiltermuth想要检验在一个任务中行为不道德的人是否在后续任务中比其他人更具创造性，即使在控制了基线创造性技能差异之后。他们选择的不道德行为是不诚实。

H) Over five experiments researchers gave participants tasks in which they could cheat. In one study, they were given matrixes (矩阵) and had to find two numbers that added up to 10, Participants were asked to self-report how well they did at the end of the study: 59% cheated by saying that they solved more matrixes than they actually had.

在五项实验中，研究人员给了参与者可以作弊的任务。在一项研究中，他们被给予矩阵，并需要找到两个数字相加等于10。参与者被要求在研究结束时自我报告他们的表现：59%的人通过声称他们解决了比实际更多的矩阵来作弊。

I) After each task, the researchers measured participants' performance on the Remote Associates Test. This shows participants three words at a time that appear to be unrelated, and the person has to think of a fourth word that is associated with all of them. For example, you might get "Fox, Man, Peep", or "Dust, Cereal, Fish". In order to find the linking words ("Hole" for the first, "Bowl" for the second) you need to be creative. The more you get right, the more creative you are thought to be because you have come up with uncommon associations.

在每个任务后，研究人员测量了参与者在远程联想测试上的表现。该测试一次向参与者展示三个看似无关的词，他们需要想到一个与所有词都相关的第四个词。例如，你可能会得到“狐狸、男人、窥视”或“灰尘、谷物、鱼”。为了找到关联词（第一个是“洞”，第二个是“碗”），你需要有创造性。你答对的越多，你就被认为越有创造性，因为你提出了不常见的联想。

J) For every one of the five studies, they found the same thing—participants who cheated in the first task did better on the creativity task. Why? Like other forms of unethical behavior, lying means breaking rules. It involves being deviant, going against the social principle that people should tell the truth. Similarly, being creative involves thinking outside the box", deviating from expectations. They involve similar thought patterns, so stimulating one stimulates the other. Can we learn from this? Perhaps. To be more creative, we could try lying in a controlled environment. Find online logic games and cheat at them, play Scrabble (拼字游戏) with a dictionary, or write a story about something that is untrue? Such tasks can get our brains thinking flexibly, beyond our normal comfort zone. This is not a call to become a compulsive (强迫性的) liar, but a controlled liar.

在五项研究中的每一项，他们都发现了同样的事情——在第一个任务中作弊的参与者在创造性任务中表现得更好。为什么？像其他形式的不道德行为一样，撒谎意味着违反规则。它涉及偏离规范，违背人们应该说真话的社会原则。同样，创造性涉及跳出框架思考，偏离期望。它们涉及相似的思维模式，所以刺激一个会刺激另一个。我们能从中学到什么吗？也许。为了更有创造性，我们可以尝试在受控环境中撒谎。找在线逻辑游戏作弊，用字典玩拼字游戏，或写一个不真实的故事？这样的任务可以让我们的大脑灵活思考，超越我们正常的舒适区。这不是呼吁成为强迫性说谎者，而是成为受控的说谎者。

K) In addition to benefits for creativity, deviance can be a good thing in other ways. Even Philip Zimbardo, the author of the Stanford prison experiment, who showed how easily we can be led to behave badly, believes that the future of deviance research may lie more in understanding extreme pro social behavior, such as heroism. Like evil, we often view heroism as only a possibility for outliers—for people who are abnormal. But Zimbardo asks: "What if the capability to act heroically is also fundamentally ordinary and available to all of us?" Some say we should never meet our heroes, lest they disappoint us when we find out how normal they are. But this should be liberating, not disappointing. We are all capable of behaving like outliers. It's time for us to understand deviance, and realize its potential for good as well as for harm.

除了对创造性的益处，偏离也可以在其他方面是好事。即使是斯坦福监狱实验的作者菲利普·津巴多，他展示了我们多么容易被引导做出不良行为，也相信偏离研究的未来可能更多地在于理解极端亲社会行为，如英雄主义。像邪恶一样，我们通常将英雄主义视为只有异常人才能实现的可能性。但津巴多问道：“如果采取英雄行为的能力本质上也是普通人所具备的，并且我们所有人都具备呢？”有些人说我们不应该见到我们的英雄，以免当我们发现他们多么普通时失望。但这应该是解放的，而不是失望的。我们都有能力像异常人一样行事。是时候我们理解偏离，并认识到它对善和恶的潜力。