为了兼顾阅读和观影，我制作了一些电影对白的小册子（其实就是把中英文字幕单独整理出来），并且用道林纸印了。在看电影之前，先通读一遍，把生词解决个七七八八，然后再去看无中文字幕的影片，效果非常好。
这些册子大致是这样的
在我委托印刷之后，他们先给我发丢了一套，在补发之后，之前丢的那套也被快递公司找到了。于是我就有了两套重复的册子。
所以……订阅这个《行为》专栏的前十个朋友，都可获赠随机一本这种小册子。
previously on…
…A behavior has just occurred. 一个行为刚刚发生。
Why did it happen? 为什么会发生?
Your first category of explanation is going to be a neurobiological one. 你的第一类解释是神经生物学的。
What went on in that person’s brain a second before the behavior happened?
在行为发生前一秒钟，那个人的大脑里发生了什么?
Now pull out to a slightly larger field of vision, your next category of explanation, a little earlier in time.
现在把视野转大一点，你的下一个解释，时间稍早一点。
What sight, sound, or smell in the previous seconds to minutes triggered the nervous system to produce that behavior?
什么视觉，声音，或气味在前几秒到几分钟就能触发神经系统产生这种行为?
Now
On to the next explanatory category change, how responsive that individual was to the sensory stimuli that trigger the nervous system to produce the behavior?
下一个解释性的类别变化，个体对刺激神经系统产生这种行为的感觉刺激反应如何?
And by now you’ve increased your field of vision to be thinking about neurobiology and the sensory world(感官世界） of our environment and short-term endocrinology in trying to explain what happened.
现在你已经扩大了视野，开始思考神经生物学和我们环境的感觉世界(感官世界)以及短期内分泌学，试图解释发生了什么。
And you just keep expanding. 然后你不断扩大（视野）。
What features of the environment in the prior weeks to years changed the structure and function of that person’s brain and thus changed how it responded to those hormones and brain and thus changed how it responded to those hormones and environmental stimuli?
Then you go further back to the childhood of the individual, their fetal environment（子宫环境）, then their genetic makeup And then you increase the view to encompass factors larger than that one individual— how has culture shaped the behavior（塑造行为） of people living in that individual’s group（社群）?—what ecological factors（生态因素） helped shape that culture（塑造文化）—expanding and expanding until considering events umpteen millennia ago and the evolution of that behavior.
然后你进一步回到个人的童年，他们的胎儿环境，然后他们的基因组成，然后你扩大视野，涵盖比个人更大的因素——文化是如何塑造了生活在这个群体中的人们的行为的?——生态因素帮助塑造了这种文化——不断扩展，直到考虑到数千年前的事件和这种行为的进化。
Okay, so this represents an improvement—it seems like instead of trying to explain all of behavior with a single discipline (e.g., “Everything can be explained with knowledge about this particular [take your pick:] hormone/gene/childhood event”), we’ll be thinking about a bunch of disciplinary buckets. But something subtler（微妙） will be done, and this is the most important idea in the book: when you explain a behavior with one of these disciplines, you are implicitly invoking all the disciplines—any given type of explanation is the end product of the influences that preceded it. It has to work this way.
好吧，这代表了一种进步——它似乎不是试图用单一的学科来解释所有的行为(例如，“所有的事情都可以用这个特定的知识来解释:激素/基因/童年事件”)，我们将考虑一系列的学科。但还会有更微妙的事情发生，这也是本书最重要的观点:当你用其中一种规则解释一种行为时，你就隐含地调用了所有的规则——任何给定类型的解释都是之前影响的最终产物。那必须的……
If you say, “The behavior occurred because of the release of neurochemical Y in the brain,” you are also saying, “The behavior occurred because the heavy secretion of hormone X this morning increased the levels of neurochemical Y.” You’re also saying, “The behavior occurred because the environment in which that person was raised made her brain more likely to release neurochemical Y in response to certain types of stimuli.” And you’re also saying, “. . . because of the gene that codes for the particular version of neurochemical Y.” And if you’ve so much as whispered the word “gene,” you’re also saying, “. . . and because of the millennia of factors that shaped the evolution of that particular gene.” And so on.
如果你说，“这种行为的发生是因为大脑中神经化学物质Y的释放”，你也在说，“这种行为的发生是因为今早大量分泌的激素X增加了神经化学物质Y的水平”，你也在说，“这种行为的发生是因为这个人成长的环境使她的大脑更有可能在某些类型的刺激下释放神经化学物质Y。”你也在说，“……因为这种基因编码了神经化学物质y的特定版本。”如果你小声说了“基因”这个词，你也在说，“……因为数千年的因素塑造了这个特定基因的进化。”等等......
There are not different disciplinary buckets. Instead, each one is the end product of all the biological influences that came before it and will influence all the factors that follow it.
没有不同的学科分类。相反，每一个最终产物都是之前所有生物影响的结果，并将影响之后的所有因素。
Thus, it is impossible to conclude that a behavior is caused by a gene, a hormone, a childhood trauma, because the second you invoke one type of explanation, you are de facto invoking them all.
因此，不可能得出这样的结论:某种行为是由基因、激素或童年创伤引起的，因为一旦你援引其中一种解释，你实际上就援引了所有的解释。
No buckets. A “neurobiological” or “genetic” or “developmental”explanation for a behavior is just shorthand, an expository convenience for temporarily approaching the whole multifactorial arc from a particular perspective.
没有桶。对行为的“神经生物学”或“遗传”或“发育”解释只是一种简略的解释方式，是为了从一个特定的角度暂时接近整个多因素弧的一种方便解释。
Pretty impressive, huh? Actually, maybe not. Maybe I’m just pretentiously saying, “You have to think complexly about complex things.”
很厉害吧 ? 事实上，也许不是。也许我只是在装腔作势地说:“你必须对复杂的事情进行复杂的思考。”
Wow, what a revelation. And maybe what I’ve been tacitly setting up is this full-of-ourselves straw man of “Ooh, we’re going to think subtly. We won’t get suckered into simplistic answers, not like those chicken-crossing-the road neurochemists and chicken evolutionary biologists and chicken psychoanalysts, all living in their own limited categorical buckets.”
哇，好一个启示。也许我一直在静静的填充这个充满自我的稻草人，“哦，我们要巧妙地思考。我们不会被简单的答案所迷惑，不像那些鸡过马路——神经化学家、鸡进化生物学家和鸡精神分析学家（呼应前文的母鸡过马路假设，指的是用单一学科分类解释鸡过马路行为的人），都生活在自己有限的分类里。”
Obviously, scientists aren’t like that. They’re smart. They understand that they need to take lots of angles into account. Of necessity, their research may focus on a narrow subject, because there are limits to how much one person can obsess over. But of course they know that their particular categorical bucket isn’t the whole story.
显然，科学家不是这样的。他们是聪明的。他们知道他们需要考虑很多角度。出于必要，他们的研究可能会集中在一个狭窄的主题上，因为一个人痴迷的程度是有限的。当然，他们知道他们的分科不是故事的全部。
Maybe yes, maybe no. Consider the following quotes from some card carrying（大佬） scientists.
也许是，也许不是。考虑一下以下一些科学大佬的名言。
The first quote :
Give me a dozen healthy infants, well formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and yes, even beggar-man thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race（种族） of his ancestors. This was John Watson, a founder of behaviorism, writing around 1925.
第一个引文:
给我一打健康的、发育良好的婴儿，让我在自己规定的世界里抚养他们，我保证其中任意一个，我都能把他培养成我想要的任何一种专家——医生、律师、艺术家、巨贾，是的，甚至乞丐小偷，而不管他的天赋、嗜好、倾向、能力、职业和祖先的种族。这是行为主义的创始人约翰·沃森在1925年左右写的。
Behaviorism, with its notion that behavior is completely malleable, that it can be shaped into anything in the right environment, dominated American psychology in the midtwentieth century; we’ll return to behaviorism, and its considerable limitations（相当有局限性）. The point is that Watson was pathologically caught inside a bucket having to do with the environmental influences on development. “I’ll guarantee . . . to train him to become any type.” Yet we are not all born the same, with the same potential, regardless of how we are trained.
打脸（以上和以下的例子都是著名的科学家错得离谱的观念）：行为主义认为行为是完全可塑的，在适当的环境下可以塑造成任何东西，在20世纪中期主导了美国心理学; 行为主义有相当大的局限性。关键是，沃森病态的被困在了一个与环境对发展影响有关的分类里。“我保证……训练他成为任何类型的人。”然而，不管我们是如何训练的，我们并不是生来都一样，都有同样的潜力。
The next quote:
Normal psychic life depends upon the good functioning of brain synapses, and mental disorders appear as a result of synaptic derangements. . . . It is necessary to alter these synaptic adjustments and change the paths chosen by the impulses in their constant passage so as to modify the corresponding ideas and force thought into different channels.
下一个引文:
正常的精神生活依赖于大脑突触的良好功能，而精神障碍是突触紊乱的结果. . . .有必要改变这些突触的调整，改变脉冲在不断传递中所选择的路径，从而改变相应的观念，迫使思想进入不同的通道。
Alter synaptic adjustments. Sounds delicate. Yeah, right. These were the words of the Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz, around the time he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1949 for his development of frontal leukotomies. Here was an individual pathologically stuck in a bucket having to do with a crude version of the nervous system. Just tweak those microscopic synapses with a big ol’ ice pick (as was done once leukotomies, later renamed frontal lobotomies, became an assembly line operation).
改变突触的调整。微妙的声音。是的, 对的。这是葡萄牙神经学家埃加斯·莫尼兹(Egas Moniz)在1949年因推进额叶白质切除术而获得诺贝尔奖时所说的话。
Here was an individual pathologically stuck in a bucket having to do with a crude version of the nervous system. Just tweak those microscopic synapses with a big ol’ ice pick (as was done once leukotomies, later renamed frontal lobotomies, became an assembly line operation).
这是一个病态的困在与神经系统学的粗糙版本有关的分类的人。只要用一个大的冰锥拧那些微小的突触脑白质切除术(后来改名为额叶切除术)变成了流水线操作。
And a final quote:
The immensely high reproduction rate in the moral imbecile has long been established. . . . Socially inferior human material is enabled . . . to penetrate and finally to annihilate the healthy nation.
The selection for toughness, heroism, social utility . . . must be accomplished by some human institution if mankind, in default of selective factors, is not to be ruined by domestication-induced degeneracy. The racial idea as the basis of our state has already accomplished much in this respect. We must—and should—rely on the healthy feelings of our Best and charge them . . . with the extermination of elements of the population loaded with dregs.（这段非常难翻，以及……我好像梦见过我被这么一段话卡住过）
最后引用一句:
道德卑劣的群体有极高的生育率. . . .社会地位低下的人类“材料”被渗透并最终消灭健康的民族。
坚韧、英雄主义、社会福利……必须通过某种人类组织来完成选择，以避免(国家）缺乏这些因素的，被驯化导致的退化所毁灭。种族思想在我国已经取得了很大的成就。我们必须，也应该依赖我们中最优人群的健康感觉，并加以管控。消灭人口中的渣滓。
This was Konrad Lorenz, animal behaviorist, Nobel laureate, cofounder of the field of ethology (stay tuned), regular on nature TV programs.
Grandfatherly Konrad, in his Austrian shorts and suspenders, being followed by his imprinted baby geese, was also a rabid Nazi propagandist.
这是康拉德·洛伦兹，动物行为学家，诺贝尔奖得主，动物行为学领域的联合创始人(仍是)，经常在自然电视节目中出现。
慈祥的康拉德，穿着他的奥地利背带短裤，身后跟着他那“初生印记小鹅”（动物行为学研究成果，刚出生的幼鹅会把见到的第一个动物当做母亲），他也是一个狂热的纳粹宣传者。
Lorenz joined the Nazi Party the instant Austrians were eligible, and joined the party’s Office of Race Policy, working to psychologically screen Poles of mixed Polish/German parentage, helping to determine which were sufficiently Germanized to be spared death. Here was a man pathologically mired in an imaginary bucket related to gross misinterpretations of what genes do.
洛伦兹在奥地利人符合条件的那一刻就加入了纳粹党，并加入了该党的种族政策办公室，从事从心理上筛选波兰和德国混血的波兰人，帮助确定哪些人已经被充分地德国化从而可以免于死亡。这是一个因对基因功能的严重误解而陷入幻想的男人。
These were not obscure scientists producing fifth-rate（五流，比三六还低两流 science at Podunk U（野鸡大学）. These were among the most influential scientists of the twentieth century. They helped shape who and how we educate and our views on what social ills are fixable and when we shouldn’t bother. They enabled the destruction of the brains of people against their will. And they helped implement final solutions for problems that didn’t exist. It can be far more than a mere academic matter when a scientist thinks that human behavior can be entirely explained from only one perspective.
这些不是在野鸡大学创造“五流科学”的科学家。他们属于是 20 世纪最有影响力的科学家。他们帮助塑造了我们的教育对象和教育方式，以及关于我们的哪些社会弊病是可以解决的以及什么时候我们不应该解决。他们违背人们的意愿破坏了他们的大脑。他们帮助实现了对根本不存在的问题的最终解决方案。当一个科学家认为人类的行为可以从一个角度完全解释时，这远不只一个纯粹的学术问题。
下期更新：
OUR LIVES AS ANIMALS AND OUR HUMAN VERSATILITY AT BEING AGGRESSIVE
动物般活着的我们，以及人类在攻击行为上的多样性。
【今日读后感】：
今天把读后感写在前面，其实今天更新的和昨天更新的是连续的，但是由于放在一篇里文本量过大，大多数人没有耐心看完，所以进行了拆分。我姑算了一下其实后面每一章都需要至少拆分成三部分，以适应阅读需要。因此这个专栏原定的更新18期，会增加到至少 54 期。
今天这段里有很重要的内容，就是“执拗的觉得自己特别对”这件事有多离谱。科学家也容易陷入自身学科的桎梏，把自己的思想置于离谱的境地。这里列举了几位最臭名昭著的获得过诺贝尔奖的专家，有的用冰锥刺入病人大脑进行后来被证实是令人痴呆的前额叶白质切除术。在无人敢质疑这位权威专家的时代，其竟然环球进行了流水线式的手术，导致大量病人致残。
以及在人们刚开始了解遗传学的时期，有位科学家将基因解释扩大化，变成一个社会达尔文主义者，并且毫无意外的加入了纳粹，负责通过心理测试而决定一个人是否要去死……
我觉得这些内容对于处于一个“互联网种族主义”环境中的我们，颇有启发。人越是固执，越是笃信自己掌握了真理，如果还掌握一定的地位和权力，就更容易制造一些灾难。
萨波斯基的《行为》一书很好的解释了我们人类行为在发生时，所涉及到的复杂因素，包括但不仅限于，神经反射、内分泌、基因、孕期影响、成长环境和文化因素等等。这是一本可以让我们全面理解我们的离谱行为究竟为什么的著作，只可惜没有便于阅读的简体中文版，因此我就花点力气将其逐段进行了翻译，并写下读后感。欢迎点赞、关注支持，并督促我更新。
