孪生陌生人

先天的 DNA，和后天的生活环境，在人的一生中究竟产生什么样的影响？这的确是一个关乎你我他的大问题。

美国某著名心理学家在某财团的资助下，将一些同卵孪生弃婴，分散安置到他暗中筛选出来的家庭中生活，并长年偷偷观察。十九年后，纪录片《孪生陌生人》（Three Identical Strangers，2018）说的这孪生三兄弟意外重逢，并成了全美明星，知情权等问题引发社会大众的非议，这实验就终止了。相关的研究资料，被封存在图书馆至 2066 年。

由于资料保密，这部纪录片能说到的，只是该事件的冰山一角。实验能否为前面那个大问题给出答案，暂时还不得而知。

由于这类让人从婴儿起就充当小白鼠的实验实在说不过去，人类若好奇心大发，还是先去翻翻存世的经典文献，看看是否已经写好了答案再说吧，最好先别搞人。

2018.10.16 http://william-ho.lofter.com/post/6c3aa_12b840224

很有电影感，纪录片和电影相结合，里面的情节引人入胜。 不过还是想说下看完后的感受。 最重要的一点，我也很想看2066年后的研究结果，想看看他们究竟研究的是什么，不过2066年我估计不在了。 对于人来说，是先天重要，还是后天的培养环境呢？这是我们一直在讨论的问题。还记得去年发生“母亲欲割肝救子，结果发现孩子不是亲生的”这个新闻，闹的沸沸扬扬的，似乎这两个抱错的小孩家庭成长背景也相互调换了，一个中产，一个家庭情况稍微没那么好。 看网友评论说，有个小孩狼心狗肺啥的，是遗传劣质的基因。 这，可以这么说吗？我不认为，很多事情是由各方的综合因素所形成的，而不是单一的。 我本来觉得是后天影响比较大，可是现在回想所看到的，所经历的，相互结合吧。 还有最近看《如父如子》，也是孩子被抱错，里面发生的事，但这是小说。

话说还是很想看到研究结果，想看看他们为啥隐瞒，想看看到底研究出个啥玩意。影片中，他们都有提到过，有个精神不大好的生母，而采访的那两组双胞胎，都曾或多或少地患过精神疾病。虽然里面有个研究员说他们研究的不是这个，但这样本是不是也太巧合了？

还有家庭因素，后天影响，好像确实是决定他们三胞胎后面的走向。但，这也是只是影片所呈现给我们看到的。

科学和伦理道德，这两样，真的很难呐

The title "Three Identical Strangers" seems strange and full of mystery. On the one hand, there is a conflict between the words "identical" and "Strangers". On the other hand, it piqued my curiosity, so I wanted to find out what happened with these three people.

This documentary begins with a dramatic coincidence. After a series of weird events, Bobby Shafran, 19, met his brother Eddy Galland, whom had never known before, on his first day at Sullivan County Community College in New York. Both Shafran and Galland were adopted, born on the same day, and even looked exactly the same. Those clues confirmed that they are identical brothers without doubt.

三胞胎

However, the story didn't come to an end. Galland answered a call after the local newspaper published their reunion after 19 years’ separation. The person on the other end of the call was named David Kellman. He surprisingly asserted that he might be the third…Twin strangers came to be the Triplets.

Shafran, Galland, and Kellman's story thus far became popular. They were interviewed on several TV shows, and people were not only shocked by the reunited story, but also by their same tastes and mannerisms even though they hadn't known each other when they were growing up.

The triplets played roles in Madonna's Movie Desperately Seeking Susan.

神秘约会 (1985)

7.1

1985 / 美国 / 剧情 喜剧 爱情 / 苏珊·塞德尔曼 / 罗姗娜·阿奎特 麦当娜

The triplets started their family-run restaurant in New York. And all of them married their true love. Nevertheless, this delight was only the calm before the storm. Galland killed himself in 1995 because of depression. Then the movie raises strange questions:

Where were their biological parents?

Why were the triplets were separated at birth?

The movie leads us to an unexpected answer – everything the triplets experienced was for a long-term psychological study. Louise Wise Service, the Jewish adoption agency that handled the triplet adoption case in the 1950s, secretly worked for a group of psychology researchers who were lead by Dr. Neubauer. The agency used to separate many twins and triplets that needed to be adopted. Shafran, Galland and Kellman were placed separately in three different income families: one in the upper-class, one in the middle-class and the other in the working-class family. The triplets all remember a group of researchers who regularly observed and recorded them when they were very young.

At first, the movie suspected that psychologists studied the genetic problems of mental illness, because some of the adopted kids and their biological parents suffered from depression, and some even committed suicide just like Galland. Nonetheless, the real purpose of this study that separated at least 50 twins and triplets was to examine the debate of Nature Versus Nurture.

This documentary has left a very deep impression on me. Not only does it tell an incredibly real story, but the storytelling structure of this movie design is also very tricky and fascinating: Audiences cannot easily guess the plot of the story. The first hour was bright. Galland, Shafran and Kellmen reunited and became famous. Thus when the film first asked why the triplets were separated after birth, I didn't think this would cause a big problem. But as the story progressed, especially when Shafran and Kellmen recalled the death of Galland, I began to question whether this separation was ethical. What’s more, this movie eventually inspired me to think: Although the triplets had lots of similarities, they are unique and independent individuals, and their destiny should not be artificially intervened.

小罗伯特实验

When we study the history of scientific development, we always admire the achievements of predecessors and ignore the inappropriate methods and sacrifices for those results. For example, John B. Watson’s “Little Albert” Experiment, Monster Study conducted by Wendell Johnson, The Aversion Project led by Dr. Aubrey Levin. All the experiments are unethical and had terrible impact on those participants’ minds. These tragedies stem from scientists’ neglect and ignorance. People always identify the problem after they found the seriousness.

Luckily, in 1953, APA (American Psychological Association) first published the Ethics Codes. After nine versions revised, psychologists use this CODE today to guide experimenting when dealing with ethical dilemmas.

飞越疯人院剧照

Despite the Ethics Code, evil is still alive. In addition to research psychology, in 2009, there is a Chinese “clinical psychiatrist” named Yongxin Yang implements electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for the treatment of adolescent internet addiction. Nearly 6000 teenagers in China claimed they received terrible treatment and Yang deceived them to have psychotropic drugs. Recently in 2016, the hospital was still in operation. a person posted his experience at Yang’s Hospital on the Internet. He mentioned that the patient was forced to obey the doctors, and the “low-frequency pulse therapy” was painful than the ECT. The most ridiculous thing is that parents actively sent their children to Yang’s hospital and paid nearly $805 a month for the therapy. I can't imagine how those teenagers experienced panic and pain while they were being treated.

In the theater where I watched Three Identical Strangers, 3 out of 4 audiences were seniors. I guess most audiences probably already know the story before watching this documentary. Maybe some of them used to be the participants of the similarity study just like the triplets on the screen.

Ultimately, Justice is sometimes late, but never absent.

本篇首发个人blog：//movifann.wordpress.com/2018/07/10/three-identical-strangers/#more-86

第一次在影院观看纪录片。买完票后还一度纠结是否要在周五晚在电影院里花一个半小时的时间看一部纪录片而不是其他爆米花片。然而，一部纪录片能在院线上映绝对有其理由；这部电影的娱乐性丝毫不逊其他故事性电影。

事件本身的轰动性自然为电影的精彩程度起到了决定性作用，导演的处理手法也同等重要。纪录片从故事开端开拍，完全按照故事发展时间线拍摄，在人物访谈中穿插了由演员还原的场景和大量真实的影像资料。用这种方法展示给观众故事发生时所有参与者真实的感受。

从失散多年的兄弟团聚到背后的“阴谋“水落石出，参与者的感情经历了高兴到困惑再到愤怒。这个感情的转换完完全全展现在了观众眼前，没有丝毫上帝视角和高谈阔论。然而，习惯了纪录片常用的闪回和倒叙，这种真实却让我有一种被欺骗的感觉——导演在拍摄的时候已经完全了解了故事的来龙去脉，他选择用这样一种方式，只是为了操控观众的感情。通过一次只展示一部分的事实，让观众只感受到导演想要表达的情感。在电影结束的之前，没人能看到整个事件的全貌。

但是，纪录片的意义虽然在于纪实，但其毕竟是一种艺术手段，作者的主观选择无法避免。因而来说，导演选择按照时间顺序来展示整个事件，在尊重事实的层面上。但也正因为此，整个影片有了一般纪录片不具有的故事性。

这部影片更接近于电影而非纪录片的另一个原因在于，影片自始至终没有给出一个价值判断，也没有更加深入的探寻事件背后的伦理道德。即，作者十分克制地只展示了公众能够看到的和主题相关的事实，而没有肆意地追问究竟。究竟这是好是坏，我无法评价。

电影的结尾是全片的点睛之笔，将一部本来就很精彩的纪录片提到了影院的标准。影片结束以后，电影院特地没有亮灯，所有人静悄悄的坐在座位上看着片尾名单滚过屏幕，让电影的戏剧性延伸到戏外。

试想一下!

今天是开学第一天，你开开心心地来到一所新学校报到。

你发现，学校里那些你生平第一次见面的同学都非常热情地与你打招呼。

你很奇怪这是为什么，但是你马上用自己“长得足够帅”说服了自己，觉得这一切都是合情合理的。

但细心的你又发现，每个人明明是在与你打招呼，他们却是用别人的名字在称呼你。

你确定你不认识他们，但他们却表现得人人都与你很熟。

直到有人还是看出来了异样，大声寻问：“你是谁？”

“我是XXX，今天第一天来学校报到。”你回答到。

“你的生日是不是19XX年X月XX日？”那人继续问到。

“天哪，你怎么知道我生日是19XX年X月XX日，我又不认识你！”你无比吃惊。

“我是XX最好的朋友，他和你长得一模一样，就连你们的生日都是一样的！你不相信我的话，我可以带你去他家找他。”

你半信半疑地来到了他朋友家，门开了，你发现开门的那个人真的就是你！

再试想一下！

就是平平常常的一天。

你早上正常的起床、刷牙、吃早饭。

你吃早饭的时候会有看报纸读新闻的习惯，这时一条新闻的标题吸引了你的注意。

“震惊！一新生在入学报到时居然找到了自己19年从未谋面的孪生兄弟！”

你津津有味地阅读着这条新闻的内容，直到你发现新闻中的这对孪生兄弟的生日居然跟你是一样的！

你没有在意，觉得这只是个巧合，直到你将报纸翻页看到了这则新闻的配图......

图片中的那对孪生兄弟，与你长相一模一样......

看到这里，大家肯定会认为我讲的是哪个科幻片或者是恐怖片的电影情节，而我要告诉大家的是，我上面所说的这些情节，是真人真事！

这件真人真事最近被拍成了一部纪录片电影，片名叫《孪生陌生人》。

电影首映是在今年北美的圣丹斯电影节，电影节上就获得了不错的口碑，最后拿到了特别陪审团奖。

国内国外口碑都还不错，烂番茄新鲜度95%，豆瓣7.9分，IMDB评分7.8分。

纪录片通过采访当事人口述以及穿插模拟还原现场拍摄的方式将整个故事展现出来，拍摄手法虽然称不上高级，但是非常具有代入感，能够让你很快地沉浸在这个纪录片所讲述的事件中。

鲍比（Bobby）是一个被领养的孩子，今年19岁，在大学开学的第一天发生了我上面所说的那件事：他遇见了自己19年来从未谋面的孪生兄弟艾迪（Eddy）。

原来艾迪也是被领养的孩子，他比鲍比早一年来到这个大学，所以学校里的学生都已经认识他了。

鲍比与艾迪相认的事情太神奇了，很快他们的事情就被登上了报纸，报纸上还印着他们俩的照片。

大卫（David）很快也看到了这份报纸，让他无比吃惊的是报纸上的两人与自己居然一模一样。

大卫也是被领养的孩子，与鲍比和艾迪同年同月同日生。大卫很快通过报社联系到了鲍比与艾迪，原来他们三人真的是孪生三胞胎！

三人来自于同一家领养机构，领养机构在他们出生的那天将他们三人分别送给了三个不同的家庭领养。

三人虽然19年以来素未谋面，但见面后却无比的亲切。

他们不仅有着同样的面容与身材，还有着同样的性格，同样的喜好，同样的肢体习惯等等。

即使成长的环境与家庭各不一样，但毕竟血浓于水，有些东西在出生的时候就早已注定。

三人相似到什么程度呢？举个例子，一次艾迪患上了阑尾炎，可他没有医保，就直接用了鲍比的医保去医院做了手术，反正也没有医生能够看出来......

很快，三个人的故事就在美国出了名，源源不断的电视台采访让他们那会儿几乎变得家喻户晓，他们甚至还出演了麦当娜的新电影《神秘约会》。

但是慢慢的，他们也开始产生了怀疑：为什么三人的父母在收养他们三人的时候领养机构没有告知是孪生三胞胎？

领养机构路易斯·怀斯服务公司给出的解释是因为一般的家庭很难接受抚养三胞胎，所以为了领养家庭的利益他们才把三胞胎分开给三个家庭领养。

这样的解释很难服众，因为他们的抚养家长如果知道孩子是三胞胎，他们一定会抚养全部三个孩子的。

这些谜题的答案原来藏在了一篇并不起眼的科学文章中，这篇科学文章引用一项秘密研究，这项研究中就有同卵的兄弟姐妹被分开了。

原来为了这项科学实验，有人故意将刚刚出生的同卵婴儿给分离开了，而这些被用来研究的婴儿全部来自于同一家领养机构！这家领养机构就是将三胞胎给分开的路易斯·怀斯服务公司。

路易斯·怀斯服务公司甚至在挑选领养家庭的时候，刻意的将大卫、鲍比与艾迪分别送给了一个蓝领家庭、一个中产家庭以及一个比较富裕的家庭，目的就是为了观察他们在不同的家庭环境下成长后所表现的差异性。

这也解释了，为什么三人小时候都会有研究人员去他们家里对他们做各种跟踪测试，如智商测试、个性测试、眼手协调测试等等。

研究机构这样的行为让同卵婴儿们与研究实验室的小白鼠又有何区别呢？

然而，被强制分开研究的同卵婴儿其实并不只有他们三胞胎兄弟这一个案例。

宝拉（Paula）与爱丽丝（Elyse）比三胞胎兄弟更晚相认，她们同样是因为“科学目的”而在出生的时候被强制分开了。

她们还将自己的这段经历写成了畅销书《最熟悉的陌生人》。

所有相关的研究资料都被封存在耶鲁大学图书馆，数据包括文字，图表，音频，影像等等，总共装满了66个盒子。

在48年后的2066年以前没有人能打开这些盒子，无论是三胞胎兄弟们，还是记者或是纪录片的拍摄者，他们都没有阅读权限并且也找不到能够授权的人。

没有人能看到这些研究，所以没有人知道研究机构以这种方式分离了多少人，或许还有大量的双胞胎、三胞胎们不知道他们自己是双胞胎或是三胞胎，或许他们一辈子都不可能知道。

我想如果我有同卵的兄弟姐妹，我当然是想要去认识他们，因为这样我的生命才是完整的。

所以如果你有一天走在路上，突然回头看到一个与你长相一模一样的人，不要惊讶，因为你永远不知道这个世界上会不会存在第二个“你”！

首发于暴走看啥片儿微信公众号，未经授权，请勿转载

作者：吃麦子的马

一开始以为是巧合，三兄弟多年后重聚的喜剧，可是到后来，越来越不一样，一层一层的剥开，发现三兄弟的一切都是被设计好的。

像小白鼠一样，一举一动被人操控着，而且自己都不知道被操控。非常不可思议，些许反伦理的行为，在上世纪九十年代的心理学狂潮中被人们认为是正常的。实验进行了很多年，等到三兄弟发现真相的时候，三兄弟之中的一个——艾迪，已经自杀了。

实验将患有精神疾病的父母所生的双胞胎或者三胞胎分别寄养在不同的家庭，让他们接受不同的教育成长环境，当然，他们都是携带精神疾病基因的人，结果证明，后天成长环境对一个人的影响是比先天基因大的多的。

怎么出来的这个结果呢？艾迪的自杀证明的。

三兄弟中，只有艾迪进入了一个跟自身性格完全不同的家庭环境，继父是严谨的管理者，艾迪是天生的浪漫主义者，两个完全不同的人，在继父家里，所有的一切都不那么如意，所以艾迪成长的环境是压抑的，他也有一个失常的青春期，在医院度过的青春期，精神科。

知道艾迪自杀身亡，继父都不知道艾迪为什么自杀，他一直以为自己没有教给他足够的知识，没有教给他如何处理生活中的困难，但是，显而易见，艾迪的自杀跟他的教育方式有关系。

可是，这并不能责怪艾迪的继父，他以自己认为的最好的教育给了艾迪，只能说，这个实验本身就是一个错误。

影片中也说了，知道参与实验的所有人都去世以后才会公布实验结果，但是看完电影，大家都知道了结果。

后天的良好培养胜过基因。

Tim Wardle’s engrossing documentary tantalizingly promises audience to unearth the truth behind its newsworthy vintage hoopla of three Jewish identical triplets, separated by birth, serendipitously reunite after 19 years in 1980 when two of them are matriculated in the same college, but a conspiracy theory looms over their initial adoption polices, all issued by the defunct Louise Wise Services agency, and slowly, the film traces back to a nurture vs. nature twin study initiated by the late Dr. Peter Neubauer, a renowned child psychiatrist.

Those three triplets, Robert Shafran, Edward Galland and David Kellman, each has been selected by Dr. Neubaurer’s research team to grow up in a foster home of different economic tiers, accordingly, blue-collar, middle class and upper class, with regular visits to film and record their behavioral patterns without telling each family the truth, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the research is unethical to a fault, but it is also clear to understand that, when temptation is that high - to acquire a chance of purely studying genetically identical specimens without any cross-contaminating external inferences, ethics can be easily compromised, this is what the film hits home with, although Wardle verges on over-exploiting sentimentality to this reviewer’s taste.

Told through various talking-heads effusing on the beggar-belief discovery, the film is noticeably edited to coalesce an intriguing narrative by filmmakers carefully choosing what information can be divulged along the way, for one thing, it never loses that lucidity in it. But conspicuous by his own absence, since Robert and David are the main raconteurs, very soon, the absent Edward’s fate starts to cast an ominous undertow, so by the time the bean finally been spilled, we have already built up enough ballast to accept it with spiraling curiosity of its raison d’être, unfortunately, Wardle skirts over it, one might second-guess because the family has its concern of their privacy, but still, it is somewhat disheartening, one cannot just lump the reason behind a person’s suicide to a simple medical term like “manic depression”, there is much more factors in the play, everyone knows that, therefore this obvious cop-out hamstrings the film’s sensibility and impact.

Graciously allowing different voices being uttered in the mix, and predictably veering back to the nature vs. nurture debate for its closure (please do not torment Eddy’s foster father who has already lost a son, he is not the one to blame and of course nurturing is substantive, that differentiates us from animals) when the ongoing investigation hits a cul-de-sac, Dr. Neubaurer’s research report has been officially sealed in Yale until 2066 (why particularly choosing offspring of mentally disturbed subjects? That leaves a big question mark!), THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS is a documentary fashioned in its safest route to allure a mass audience (which it did with a whopping $12.3 million box-office receipt stateside), but relative to its sensitive and contentious subject matter, the outcome is less than enterprising.

referential entries: Malik Bendjelloul’s SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN (2012, 7.3/10), Sarah Polley’s STORIES WE TELL (2012, 8.2/10).