How to have better political conversations | Robb Willer

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Joanna Pietrulewicz

譯者: Regina Chu 審譯者: SF Huang

So you probably have the sense, as most people do,

你大概像大家一樣，

that polarization is getting worse in our country,

意識到這個國家愈來愈兩極化，

that the divide between the left and the right

左派與右派之間的隔閡，

is as bad as it's been in really any of our lifetimes.

這輩子從來沒有像現在這麼糟過。

But you might also reasonably wonder if research backs up your intuition.

你也可能理性地想過 你的直覺是否有研究實證。

And in a nutshell, the answer is sadly yes.

一言以蔽之，這個答案 很不幸的是「有」。

In study after study, we find

一個又一個的研究顯示

that liberals and conservatives have grown further apart.

自由派與保守派早已漸行漸遠。

They increasingly wall themselves off in these ideological silos,

他們愈來愈把自己關在 意識形態的巨塔中，

consuming different news, talking only to like-minded others

看不同的新聞，只跟同類的人講話，

and more and more choosing to live in different parts of the country.

而且愈來愈傾向 選擇住在不同的地方。

And I think that most alarming of all of it

我認為最令人擔心的

is seeing this rising animosity on both sides.

是兩邊興起的敵意。

Liberals and conservatives,

自由派與保守派，

Democrats and Republicans,

民主黨與共和黨，

more and more they just don't like one another.

他們就是愈來愈不喜歡對方。

You see it in many different ways.

你在很多方面都能觀察到這件事。

They don't want to befriend one another. They don't want to date one another.

他們不要跟對方做朋友。 他們不要跟對方約會。

即使約了，如果發現彼此立場不同， 就覺得對方不像之前那麼有吸引力，

If they do, if they find out, they find each other less attractive,

and they more and more don't want their children to marry someone

他們愈來愈不想讓自己的孩子

who supports the other party,

與支持另一黨的人結婚，

a particularly shocking statistic.

這項統計特別令人震驚。

You know, in my lab, the students that I work with,

你知道嗎，在我的實驗室， 我與共事的學生群

we're talking about some sort of social pattern --

常常會聊一些社會模式──

I'm a movie buff, and so I'm often like,

我是個電影癡，我常常這樣想，

what kind of movie are we in here with this pattern?

這樣的模式下我們在演哪齣電影？

So what kind of movie are we in with political polarization?

政治兩極化下我們在演哪齣戲？

Well, it could be a disaster movie.

嗯，可能是災難片。

It certainly seems like a disaster.

確實很像災難片。

Could be a war movie.

可能是戰爭片。

Also fits.

也很像。

But what I keep thinking is that we're in a zombie apocalypse movie.

但是我一直都認為我們是活在 殭屍啟示錄這類的電影裡。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Right? You know the kind.

對吧？你知道那種電影。

There's people wandering around in packs,

成群結隊的人四處晃盪，

not thinking for themselves,

完全身不由己，

seized by this mob mentality

被暴民心態奪心勾魂，

trying to spread their disease and destroy society.

要傳播他們的疾病摧毀社會。

And you probably think, as I do,

你大概跟我一樣會想

that you're the good guy in the zombie apocalypse movie,

你是殭屍片裡的好人，

and all this hate and polarization, it's being propagated by the other people,

所有的仇恨啊兩極化啊， 都是另一邊的人搞起來的。

because we're Brad Pitt, right?

因為我們都是布萊德·彼特，對吧？

Free-thinking, righteous,

自由思考、正義凜然，

just trying to hold on to what we hold dear,

試圖堅守我們珍愛的，

you know, not foot soldiers in the army of the undead.

你知道，不要當殭屍的走路工。

Not that.

才不要。

Never that.

絕對不要。

But here's the thing:

問題是：

what movie do you suppose they think they're in?

你想他們覺得自己 是活在什麼電影裡呢？

Right?

對吧？

Well, they absolutely think that they're the good guys

他們當然認為自己

才是殭屍片裡的好人，對吧？

in the zombie apocalypse movie. Right?

And you'd better believe that they think that they're Brad Pitt

你最好相信他們認為 自己才是布萊德·彼特，

and that we, we are the zombies.

而我們，我們才是殭屍。

And who's to say that they're wrong?

誰能說他們是錯的？

I think that the truth is that we're all a part of this.

我認為真相是我們都身在其中。

And the good side of that is that we can be a part of the solution.

好的一面就是我們也可以 成為解決方案的一部分。

So what are we going to do?

那我們要怎麼辦？

What can we do to chip away at polarization in everyday life?

我們在日常生活中要怎麼做 才能逐漸消彌兩極化？

What could we do to connect with and communicate with

我們要怎麼做才能

與我們政治上的死對頭 建立關係、對話？

our political counterparts?

Well, these were exactly the questions that I and my colleague, Matt Feinberg,

這正是我與我的同事麥特．范柏格

became fascinated with a few years ago,

在幾年前開始熱衷的問題，

and we started doing research on this topic.

我們開始研究這個題目。

And one of the first things that we discovered

我們最先發現的幾件事裡，

that I think is really helpful for understanding polarization

有一樣我認為對瞭解 兩極化非常有幫助，

is to understand

就是我們必須了解

that the political divide in our country is undergirded by a deeper moral divide.

我國的政治分歧來自於 根深蒂固的道德分歧。

So one of the most robust findings in the history of political psychology

政治心理學史上 有一項強有力的發現，

is this pattern identified by Jon Haidt and Jesse Graham,

由強海特及傑西格藍發現的模式，

psychologists,

這兩位是心理學家，

that liberals and conservatives tend to endorse different values

他們發現自由派及保守派 傾向對不同的價值觀

to different degrees.

有不同程度的支持。

So for example, we find that liberals tend to endorse values like equality

舉個例子，我們發現自由派 對於認同平等、公平、

and fairness and care and protection from harm

關懷和保護免受傷害等價值觀，

more than conservatives do.

其程度比保守派大。

And conservatives tend to endorse values like loyalty, patriotism,

保守派則對忠誠、愛國、

respect for authority and moral purity

尊重權威及道德純潔等，

more than liberals do.

比自由派更加支持。

And Matt and I were thinking that maybe this moral divide

麥特和我認為或許這種道德分歧，

might be helpful for understanding how it is

可能對了解

that liberals and conservatives talk to one another

自由派與保守派的對話模式有幫助，

and why they so often seem to talk past one another

以及為什麼他們在對話時 常常好像雞同鴨講。

when they do.

So we conducted a study

所以我們做了一項研究，

where we recruited liberals to a study

我們招募自由派來做一項研究，

where they were supposed to write a persuasive essay

他們應該要寫一份說服性短論，

that would be compelling to a conservative in support of same-sex marriage.

吸引保守人士支持同性婚姻。

And what we found was that liberals tended to make arguments

我們發現自由派往往

in terms of the liberal moral values of equality and fairness.

用自由派的道德價值觀， 如平等及公平來論述。

So they said things like,

所以他們會說出像這樣的話：

"Everyone should have the right to love whoever they choose,"

「每個人都應該有權利 愛他們選擇的人。」

and, "They" -- they being gay Americans --

而且「他們」──指美國同性戀──

"deserve the same equal rights as other Americans."

「應與其他美國人享有 同樣的平等權利。」

Overall, we found that 69 percent of liberals

總體而言，我們發現 69% 的自由派

invoked one of the more liberal moral values in constructing their essay,

會引用偏向自由派的道德 價值觀來寫短論，

and only nine percent invoked one of the more conservative moral values,

只有 9% 會引用 偏向保守派的道德價值觀，

even though they were supposed to be trying to persuade conservatives.

即使他們應該要試著說服保守派。

And when we studied conservatives and had them make persuasive arguments

在我們研究保守人士， 要他們寫說服論據

in support of making English the official language of the US,

支持讓英語成為美國的國語時，

a classically conservative political position,

這是很經典的保守派政治立場，

we found that they weren't much better at this.

我們發現他們在這點的 表現也沒有比較好。

59 percent of them made arguments

59% 的人論述時，

in terms of one of the more conservative moral values,

引用偏向保守派的道德價值觀，

and just eight percent invoked a liberal moral value,

只有 8% 引用一項 自由派的道德價值觀，

even though they were supposed to be targeting liberals for persuasion.

儘管他們說服的目標 應該是自由派人士。

Now, you can see right away why we're in trouble here. Right?

現在，你馬上就了解為什麼 我們有這種麻煩，對吧？

People's moral values, they're their most deeply held beliefs.

人的道德價值觀 是他們最堅信不移的信念。

People are willing to fight and die for their values.

人願意為了價值觀戰鬥、犧牲性命。

Why are they going to give that up just to agree with you

他們為什麼要放棄價值觀， 只為了與你認同

on something that they don't particularly want to agree with you on anyway?

他們本來就不同意的東西？

If that persuasive appeal that you're making to your Republican uncle

如果你對共和黨叔叔 提出的那番呼籲，

means that he doesn't just have to change his view,

不但要讓他改變觀點，

he's got to change his underlying values, too,

還要改變他最基本的價值觀，

that's not going to go very far.

大概沒有什麼效果。

So what would work better?

所以怎麼做才有用？

Well, we believe it's a technique that we call moral reframing,

嗯，我們相信有個方法， 我們稱之為道德重新框架，

and we've studied it in a series of experiments.

我們對此用一系列的實驗來研究。

In one of these experiments,

在其中一項實驗中，

we recruited liberals and conservatives to a study

我們招募自由派及保守派 來做一個研究，

where they read one of three essays

他們先讀三篇短論中的一篇，

before having their environmental attitudes surveyed.

讀完之後對他們做環境態度調查。

And the first of these essays

第一篇短論

was a relatively conventional pro-environmental essay

是比較常見的親環保派文章，

that invoked the liberal values of care and protection from harm.

運用自由派關懷 及保護不受傷害等價值觀。

It said things like, "In many important ways

它會像這樣說： 「從很多重要方面來看，

we are causing real harm to the places we live in,"

我們都在對生活的地方 造成真正的危害。」

and, "It is essential that we take steps now

以及：「我們現在就必須採取步驟，

to prevent further destruction from being done to our Earth."

以避免對地球造成進一步的毀壞。」

Another group of participants

另外一組參加者

were assigned to read a really different essay

則被指派閱讀一份截然不同的短論，

that was designed to tap into the conservative value of moral purity.

專為保守派道德純潔的價值而打造。

It was a pro-environmental essay as well,

它也是一份親環保的短論，

and it said things like,

而且它是這樣說的：

"Keeping our forests, drinking water, and skies pure is of vital importance."

「讓我們的森林、飲水及天空 保持純淨是非常重要的。」

"We should regard the pollution

「我們應該視

of the places we live in to be disgusting."

汙染的居所為可憎之處。」

And, "Reducing pollution can help us preserve

以及：「減少污染可以幫助我們保護

what is pure and beautiful about the places we live."

我們純潔而美麗的居所。」

And then we had a third group

然後我們指派第三組人

that were assigned to read just a nonpolitical essay.

讀一份與政治無關的短論。

It was just a comparison group so we could get a baseline.

這只是一個對照組， 讓我們有基準線。

我們發現當我們調查

And what we found when we surveyed people

他們讀過之後的環境態度，

about their environmental attitudes afterwards,

我們發現對自由派， 給他們讀什麼短論不重要。

we found that liberals, it didn't matter what essay they read.

無論如何他們都傾向 高度親環境態度。

They tended to have highly pro-environmental attitudes regardless.

Liberals are on board for environmental protection.

自由派支持環保。

然而保守派人士

Conservatives, however,

were significantly more supportive of progressive environmental policies

會顯著更支持先進的環境政策

and environmental protection

及環境保護，

if they had read the moral purity essay

如果之前讓他們讀的 是道德純潔的短論，

than if they read one of the other two essays.

效果會比另外兩篇更好。

We even found that conservatives who read the moral purity essay

我們甚至發現讀過 道德純潔短論的保守派，

were significantly more likely to say that they believed in global warming

更有可能說他們相信全球暖化

and were concerned about global warming,

及擔心全球暖化，

即使短論中根本沒有提到全球暖化。

even though this essay didn't even mention global warming.

那只是相關的環保議題。

That's just a related environmental issue.

But that's how robust this moral reframing effect was.

由此可知道德重新框架 效應有多強大。

And we've studied this on a whole slew of different political issues.

我們已對眾多不同的 政治議題做過同樣的研究。

So if you want to move conservatives

所以如果你想促使保守人士

on issues like same-sex marriage or national health insurance,

更支持同性婚姻或全民健保等議題，

it helps to tie these liberal political issues to conservative values

把這些自由派政治議題 與保守派價值觀，

like patriotism and moral purity.

如愛國或道德純潔等 連起來會有幫助。

And we studied it the other way, too.

我們對另一邊也做過同樣的研究。

If you want to move liberals to the right on conservative policy issues

如果你想讓自由派傾右 支持保守派政治議題，

like military spending and making English the official language of the US,

如軍費及英文國語化，

you're going to be more persuasive

你會更具說服力，

if you tie those conservative policy issues to liberal moral values

只要你把這些保守政治議題 與自由派道德價值觀，

like equality and fairness.

如平等及公平連在一起。

All these studies have the same clear message:

這些研究都顯示出同樣的明確信息：

if you want to persuade someone on some policy,

如果你想說服某人支持某項政策，

it's helpful to connect that policy to their underlying moral values.

把該項政策與某人的基本道德價值 連結在一起會有幫助。

And when you say it like that

你可能會說

it seems really obvious. Right?

這非常顯而易見，不是嗎？

Like, why did we come here tonight?

那我們今天晚上還來做什麼？

Why --

為什麼──

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

It's incredibly intuitive.

這靠直覺就知道了。

And even though it is, it's something we really struggle to do.

即便如此，這真的很難做到。

You know, it turns out that when we go to persuade somebody on a political issue,

你知道嗎，事實是當我們 想說服某人某項政治議題時，

we talk like we're speaking into a mirror.

我們好像在對著鏡子講話。

We don't persuade so much as we rehearse our own reasons

我們根本說服不了別人， 如果只重複論述自己的理由，

for why we believe some sort of political position.

自己相信某項政治立場的原因。

We kept saying when we were designing these reframed moral arguments,

我們一直在說要設計出 道德重新框架的論述，

"Empathy and respect, empathy and respect."

你要有同理心及尊重， 同理心及尊重。

If you can tap into that,

如果你能帶進這點，

you can connect

你就能產生關係，

and you might be able to persuade somebody in this country.

你或許就能在這個國家說服某人。

So thinking again

所以再想一下

about what movie we're in,

我們是在演哪齣電影，

maybe I got carried away before.

可能我之前說的太誇張了。

Maybe it's not a zombie apocalypse movie.

可能不是殭屍啟示錄這類的片子。

Maybe instead it's a buddy cop movie.

可能比較像警察搭檔片。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Just roll with it, just go with it please.

再忍一下，再撐一下就好。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

You know the kind: there's a white cop and a black cop,

你知道這種片，通常有個 白人警察和黑人警察，

or maybe a messy cop and an organized cop.

或者一個亂七八糟 和一個一絲不苟的警察。

Whatever it is, they don't get along

不管什麼組合，他們都處不好，

because of this difference.

因為兩者之間的差別太大。

But in the end, when they have to come together and they cooperate,

但到了最後他們必須一起合作時，

the solidarity that they feel,

兩者感到的團結力量更大，

it's greater because of that gulf that they had to cross. Right?

因為必須跨越鴻溝，對吧？

And remember that in these movies,

要記得在這種電影裡，

it's usually worst in the second act

通常第二幕的情況會更糟，

when our leads are further apart than ever before.

主角完全水火不容。

And so maybe that's where we are in this country,

或許這正是我們國家現在的寫照。

late in the second act of a buddy cop movie --

警探搭檔片第二幕尾聲──

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

torn apart but about to come back together.

被撕裂成兩半， 但就快要彌合在一起了。

It sounds good,

說的好聽，

but if we want it to happen,

但是如果我們真的想讓它實現，

I think the responsibility is going to start with us.

我想責任就從我們開始。

So this is my call to you:

所以這是我對大家的呼籲：

let's put this country back together.

讓我們把這個國家再結合起來。

Let's do it despite the politicians

就做吧！不管政治人物、

and the media and Facebook and Twitter

媒體、臉書、推特

and Congressional redistricting

及選區重劃

and all of it, all the things that divide us.

那些東西如何分裂我們。

Let's do it because it's right.

就做吧！因為這是該做的事。

And let's do it because this hate and contempt

就做吧！因為這仇恨和蔑視

that flows through all of us every day

每天在我們之間流竄著，

makes us ugly and it corrupts us,

讓我們面目猙獰，腐蝕著我們，

and it threatens the very fabric of our society.

威脅的也正是我們的社會結構。

We owe it to one another and our country

我們應該給彼此及這個國家

to reach out and try to connect.

伸出友誼之手與嘗試溝通的機會。

We can't afford to hate them any longer,

我們沒有本錢再仇視別人，

and we can't afford to let them hate us either.

也沒有本錢讓別人仇視我們。

Empathy and respect.

同理心與尊重。

Empathy and respect.

同理心與尊重。

If you think about it, it's the very least that we owe our fellow citizens.

如果你仔細想想， 至少這是我們欠同胞的。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）