People have wondered for a long time how their personalities，and behaviors are formed.It is not easy to explain why oneperson is intelligent and another is not，or why one is cooperative and another is competitive.

　　Social scientists are，of course，extremely interested in these types of questions.（61）They want to explain why we possess certain characteristics and exhibit certain behaviors.There are no clear answers yet，but two distinct schools of thought on the matter have developed.As one might expect，the two approaches are very different from each other.The controversy is often conveniently referred to asnature vs.nurture.

　　（62）Those who support thenatureside of the conflict believe that our personalities and behavior patterns are largely determined by biological factors.（63）That our environment has little，if anything，to do with our abilities，characteristics and behavior is central to this theory.Taken to an extreme，this theory maintains that our behavior is predetermined to such a great degree that we are almost completely governed by our instincts.

　　Those who support thenurturetheory，that is，they advocate education，are often called behaviorists.They claim that our environment is more important than our biologically based instincts in determining how we will act.A behaviorist，B.F.Skinner，sees humans as beings whose behavior is almost completely shaped by their surroundings.（64）The behaviorists maintain that，like machines，humans respond to environmental stimuli as the basis of their behavior.

　　Let us examine the different explanations about one human characteristic，intelligence，offered by the two theories.（65）Supporters of thenaturetheory insist that we are born with a certain capacity for learning that is biologically determined.Needless to say，they don’t believe that factors in the environment have much influence on what is basically a predetermined characteristic.On the other hand，behaviorists argue that our intelligence levels are the product of our experiences.（66）Behaviorists suggest that the child who is raised in an environment where there are many stimuli whichdevelop his or her capacity for appropriate responses will experience greater intellectual development.

　　The social and political implications of these two theories are profound.（67）In the United States，blacks often score below whites on standardized intelligence tests.This leads somenatureproponents to conclude that blacks are biologically inferior to whites.（68）Behaviorists，in contrast，say that differences in scores are due to the fact that blacks are often deprived of many of the educational and other environmental advantages that whites enjoy.

　　Most people think neither of these theories can yet fully explain human behavior.

　　1990年英译汉试题参考译文

　　长期以来人们完全不知道他们的性格特征和行为模式是怎样形成的。人们很难解释一个聪明而另一个人愚蠢的原因，或者也很难解释一个人有协作精神，而另一个人有竞争意识的原因。

　　当然，社会科学家对这类问题极为关注。（61）他们想要说明，为什么我们具有某些性格特征并表现出某些行为。然而，这些问题尚无明确的答案。但是在这方面已经形成了两个截然不相同的学派。人们可以预料，这两家的看法大不相同。为方便起见，这种争论通常被称为天性论与环境因素论之争。

　　（62）在这场争论中，赞成天性一方的那些人认为，我们的性格特征和行为模式大多是由生物因素所决定的。（63）这种理论的核心是，我们的环境同我们的才能、性格特征和行为即使有什么关系的话，也是微不足道的。这种理论甚至极端地坚持认为，我们的行为模式在很大程度上是先天决定的;因此，我们几乎完全受我们的本能所支配。

　　赞成环境因素论的那些人，即提倡培养教育的人，通常被称为行为主义者。他们声称，在决定我们的行为方式时，环境比以生理为基础的本能更为重要。一位名叫B.F.史基纳的行为主义者认为，人的行为模式完全是由周围环境塑造的。（64）行为主义者坚信，人像机器一样，对环境的刺激作出反应，这是他们行为的基础。

　　咱们来考察一下这两种理论对人的一种性格特征———智力———的不同解释。（65）支持天性论的人坚持说，我们生来就具有一定的学习才能，这是由生物因素决定的。勿庸说，他们认为，周围环境的各种因素并不严重影响基本上是先天的性格特征。而行为主义者却争辩说，我们的智力水平是我们各种经历相结合的产物。（66）行为主义者的看法是，如果一个儿童在有许多刺激物的环境里成长，而这些刺激物能够发展其作出适当反应的能力，那么，这个儿童将会有更高的智力发展。

　　这两种理论所包含的社会和政治内涵是意味深长的。（67）在美国，黑人在标准化智力测试中的成绩常常低于白人。这就使一些天性论的拥护者得出结论，黑人在生理上比白人略低一筹。（68）相反，行为主义者认为，成绩的差异是由于黑人往往被剥夺了白人在教育及其它环境方面所享有的许多有利条件。