How can you change someone's mind? (hint: facts aren't always enough) - Hugo Mercier

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: 潘 可儿

Three people are at a dinner party.

在一場晚餐派對上有三個人。

Paul, who’s married, is looking at Linda.

保羅已婚，他正看著琳達。

Meanwhile, Linda is looking at John, who’s not married.

同時，琳達正在看著未婚的約翰。

Is someone who’s married looking at someone who’s not married?

有沒有已婚的人 正在看著未婚的人？

Take a moment to think about it.

花點時間想想這個問題。

Most people answer that there’s not enough information to tell.

大部分人的答案是： 沒有足夠的資訊來判斷。

And most people are wrong.

然而他們都錯了。

Linda must be either married or not married—there are no other options.

琳達一定是已婚或未婚—— 沒有其他可能性。

So in either scenario, someone married is looking at someone who’s not married.

所以不論是哪一種情況， 都有已婚的人正在看著未婚的人。

When presented with the explanation, most people change their minds

聽了解釋之後， 大部分的人改變了想法，

and accept the correct answer,

並接受正確的答案，

despite being very confident in their first responses.

儘管他們對自己最初的 反應是很有信心的。

Now let’s look at another case.

咱們來看看另一個案例。

A 2005 study by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler

布倫丹尼和傑森萊佛勒 在 2005 年做了一項研究，

examined American attitudes regarding the justifications for the Iraq War.

探討美國人對於 將伊拉克戰爭合理化的態度。

Researchers presented participants with a news article

研究者會給受測者看一篇新聞報導，

that showed no weapons of mass destruction had been found.

內容是沒有找到任何 大規模殺傷性武器。

Yet many participants not only continued to believe that WMDs had been found,

然而，許多受測者仍然相信 有找到大規模殺傷性武器，

but they even became more convinced of their original views.

不僅如此，他們還 更相信自己原本的觀點。

So why do arguments change people’s minds in some cases and backfire in others?

所以，為什麼在某些情況下， 說理能改變人的想法，

在某些情況下卻有反效果？

Arguments are more convincing when they rest on a good knowledge of the audience,

當觀眾本身有很好的知識時， 說理會比較有說服力，

taking into account what the audience believes,

還要考量觀眾相信的是什麼、

who they trust,

他們相信的是誰，

and what they value.

以及他們重視的是什麼。

Mathematical and logical arguments like the dinner party brainteaser work

數學和邏輯的理由會有用， 就像在前面的晚餐派對範例那樣，

because even when people reach different conclusions,

因為儘管人們得出不同的結論，

they’re starting from the same set of shared beliefs.

他們的起始點是同樣一組 共同的信念看法。

In 1931, a young, unknown mathematician named Kurt Gödel presented a proof

1931 年，一位年輕默默無聞的 數學家冠特戈德爾提出證據，

that a logically complete system of mathematics was impossible.

證明數學不可能有任何 在邏輯上完備的系統。

Despite upending decades of work by brilliant mathematicians

儘管他的論點完全抵觸 傑出數學家數十年的研究，

like Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert,

如伯特蘭·羅素和大衛·希爾伯特，

the proof was accepted

但這項證據仍被接受了，

because it relied on axioms that everyone in the field already agreed on.

因為它的基礎是在這個領域中 大家都已經認同的公理。

Of course, many disagreements involve different beliefs

當然，許多不認同 是涉及到不同信念看法，

that can’t simply be reconciled through logic.

這就無法單單透過邏輯來和解。

When these beliefs involve outside information,

當這些信念看法又涉及了外部資訊，

the issue often comes down to what sources and authorities people trust.

議題通常就變成是大家 信賴的來源和權威是什麼了。

One study asked people to estimate several statistics

有一項研究要求受測者去估計幾項

related to the scope of climate change.

和氣候變遷範圍相關的統計數字。

Participants were asked questions,

受測者要回答一些問題，

such as “how many of the years between 1995 and 2006

比如「從 1850 年之後 最熱的 12 年，

were one of the hottest 12 years since 1850?”

有多少年落在 1995 年 到 2006 年間？」

After providing their answers,

在提出答案之後，

they were presented with data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

會再提供他們跨政府部門 專門委員會的氣候變化資料，

in this case showing that the answer was 11 of the 12 years.

資料顯示，12 年中有 11 年 落在這個時間區間。

Being provided with these reliable statistics from a trusted official source

得到可靠的統計數字， 且是來自可信任的官方來源，

made people more likely to accept the reality that the earth is warming.

這些人就更有可能接受 地球正在暖化的現實。

Finally, for disagreements that can’t be definitively settled

最後，至於用統計或邏輯 都無法解決的異議，

with statistics or evidence,

making a convincing argument

若要提出有說服力的理由，

may depend on engaging the audience’s values.

可能會需要去處理觀眾的價值觀。

For example, researchers have conducted a number of studies

比如，研究者進行了許多研究，

where they’ve asked people of different political backgrounds

他們要求不同政治背景的受測者

to rank their values.

將他們的價值觀排名。

Liberals in these studies, on average, rank fairness—

一般來說，在這些研究中 自由主義者會把公平——

here meaning whether everyone is treated in the same way—above loyalty.

這裡的公平是指 用同樣的方式對待每個人——

排名在忠誠之上。

In later studies, researchers attempted to convince liberals

在後來的研究中， 研究者試圖用各種理由

去說服自由主義者支持軍事的花費。

to support military spending with a variety of arguments.

Arguments based on fairness—

以公平為基礎的理由——

like that the military provides employment

比如軍隊能提供工作機會

and education to people from disadvantaged backgrounds—

和教育給來自弱勢背景的人——

were more convincing than arguments based on loyalty—

是比較有說服力的， 勝過以忠誠為基礎的理由——

such as that the military unifies a nation.

比如軍隊能讓國家團結。

These three elements—

這三項元素——

beliefs, trusted sources, and values—

信念看法、信賴的來源及價值觀——

may seem like a simple formula for finding agreement and consensus.

似乎是個很簡單的方程式， 可以協助取得同意和共識。

The problem is that our initial inclination is to think of arguments

問題是，我們最初的傾向 就是去思考建立在我們自己的

that rely on our own beliefs, trusted sources, and values.

信念看法、信賴的來源， 及價值觀之上的理由。

And even when we don’t,

當我們不這麼做時，

it can be challenging to correctly identify what’s held dear

若要正確地找出尚未同意 我們的人究竟珍視什麼，

by people who don’t already agree with us.

就會變得很困難。

The best way to find out is simply to talk to them.

找到答案最好的方式， 就是和他們談。

In the course of discussion,

在討論的過程中，

you’ll be exposed to counter-arguments and rebuttals.

你會遇到相反的論點和反駁。

These can help you make your own arguments and reasoning more convincing

這些都能協助你把你自己的論點 和理由變得更有說服力，

and sometimes, you may even end up being the one changing your mind.

有時，你最後甚至會成為 改變你自己想法的那個人。