Julia Dhar: How to have constructive conversations | TED

Transcriber:

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

Three planes, 25 hours, 10,000 miles.

三架飛機，二十五小時，一萬哩，

My dad gets off a flight from Australia with one thing in mind

我爸爸踏出由澳洲起飛的飛機， 腦中只想著一件事，

and it's not a snack or a shower or a nap.

不是點心，不是淋浴，不是小睡。

It's November 2016

2016 年十一月，

and Dad is here to talk to Americans about the election.

爸爸去那裡和美國人談選舉。

Now, Dad's a news fiend, but for him,

爸爸是個新聞迷，但，對他而言，

this is not just red or blue, swing states or party platforms.

重點不只是紅或藍、 搖擺州，或政黨綱領。

He has some really specific intentions.

他有一些非常明確的意圖，

He wants to listen, be heard and understand.

他想要傾聽、被聽見、去了解。

And over two weeks, he has hundreds of conversations

在兩週的期間， 他進行了數百場談話，

with Americans from New Hampshire to Miami.

對象是從新漢普夏 到邁阿密的美國人。

Some of them are tough conversations,

有些談話相當難搞，

complete differences of opinions,

完全分歧的意見，

wildly different worldviews,

差異極大的世界觀，

radically opposite life experiences.

極度相反的人生經歷。

But in all of those interactions,

但在所有這些互動中

Dad walks away with a big smile on his face

爸爸離開時，臉上總是 掛著大大的笑容，

and so does the other person.

另一方亦是如此。

You can see one of them here.

這是其中一張照片。

And in those interactions,

在那些互動中，

he's having a version of what it seems like we have less of,

他用的方式是

我們很想要卻總是欠缺的方式——

but want more of --

a constructive conversation.

建設性談話。

We have more ways than ever to connect.

現在我們連結的方式比以往多很多。

And yet, politically, ideologically,

但，在政治上、意識形態上，

it feels like we are further and further apart.

感覺起來我們卻與彼此是漸行漸遠。

We tell pollsters that we want politicians who are open-minded.

我們告訴民調說我們想要 想法開放的政治人物，

And yet when they change their point of view,

但，當政治人物改變觀點的時候，

we say that they lacked conviction.

我們就說他們缺乏信念。

For us, when we're confronted with information

至於我們，當我們遇到

挑戰既有世界觀的資訊時，

that challenges an existing worldview,

our tendency is not to open up, it's to double down.

我們傾向去打擊打壓而非開放接受。

We even have a term for it in social psychology.

在社會心理學中甚至 還有一個專門的用語，

It's called belief perseverance.

信念堅持（信念固著）。

And boy, do some people's beliefs seem to persevere.

有些人的信念真的非常堅持，

I'm no stranger to tough conversations.

我對難搞的談話一點也不陌生。

I got my start in what I now call productive disagreement

我在高中辯論時就開始做

我現在所謂的 「有生產力的不同意」，

in high school debate.

I even went on to win

我甚至接連贏得 世界學校辯論冠軍，三次。

the World Schools Debate Championship three times.

I've been in a lot of arguments, is what I'm saying,

我要說的是，我曾經參與過許多爭論。

but it took watching my dad on the streets of the US

但直到我看著我爸爸 在美國街頭的所做所為，

to understand that we need to figure out

我才了解到，我們必須要 好好思考如何進入談話。

how we go into conversations.

Not looking for the victory, but the progress.

不是要求勝利，而是求進展。

And so since November 2016, that's what I've been doing.

因此，我從 2016 年十一月 之後就一直在這麼做。

Working with governments, foundations, corporations, families,

我和政府、基金會、企業、家庭合作，

to uncover the tools and techniques

來找出有哪些工具和技巧，

that allow us to talk when it feels like the divide is unbridgeable.

能讓我們在感覺雙方 不可能溝通的情況下對談。

And constructive conversations that really move the dialogue forward

能夠讓對話向前邁進的建設性談話

have these same three essential features.

都具有三種基本特徵。

First, at least one party in the conversation

第一，談話中至少要有一方

is willing to choose curiosity over clash.

願意選擇好奇而非衝突。

They're open to the idea that the discussion is a climbing wall,

他們能夠開放地這麼想：

討論比較像是爬牆，

not a cage fight,

而不是籠中格鬥。

that they'll make progress over time

隨時間，談話會有進展。

and are able to anchor all of that in purpose of the discussion.

且他們能把這些通通放入到

討論的目標。

For someone trained in formal debate,

受過正規辯論訓練的人

it is so tempting to run headlong at the disagreement.

會很想要二話不說 馬上提出不同意之處，

In fact, we call that clash

我們將之稱為衝突。

and in formal argumentation,

在做正式的立論時，

it's a punishable offense if there's not enough of it.

若衝突不夠，還會被視為 該懲罰的過錯呢。

But I've noticed, you've probably noticed, too,

但我注意到，你可能也注意到了，

that in real life that tends to make people shut down,

在現實中，

衝突通常會讓人把門關上。

not just from the conversation,

不僅是把談話拒於門外，

but even from the relationship.

甚至會把關係拒於門外。

It's actually one of the causes of unfriending, online and off.

這其實正是解除朋友關係

（網路上或非網路上）的原因之一。

So instead, you might consider a technique

所以，你可以考慮改用一項技巧，

made popular by the Hollywood producer Brian Grazer,

好萊塢製片布萊恩·葛瑟 將這個技巧發揚光大：

the curiosity conversation.

好奇談話。

And the whole point of a curiosity conversation

好奇談話的重點在於

is to understand the other person's perspective,

了解對方的觀點，

to see what's on their side of the fence.

越過籬笆看看在他們 所處的那一邊有什麼。

And so the next time

所以，下一次若遇到某人說的話

that someone says something you instinctively disagree with,

讓你打從直覺上就不同意，

that you react violently to,

讓你有很激烈的反應，

you only need one sentence and one question:

此時你只需要說一句話 和問一個問題：

“I never thought about it exactly that way before.

「我以前從來沒有 用這種方式來思考過，

What can you share that would help me see what you see?”

你能不能跟我分享一點什麼， 幫我了解你所看到的面向？」

What's remarkable about curiosity conversations

好奇談話很了不起的地方在於，

is that the people you are curious about tend to become curious about you.

你所好奇的對象

通常也會對你產生好奇。

Whether it's a friendly Australian gentleman,

不論對方是友善的澳洲紳士、

a political foe or a corporate rival,

政治死對頭，或企業競爭對手，

they begin to wonder what it is that you see

他們會開始納悶，你看見了什麼，

and whether they could see it to.

以及他們是否也有可能看見。

Constructive conversations aren't a one-shot deal.

建設性談話不是一次就搞定的事情。

If you go into an encounter expecting everyone to walk out

如果你遇到一個人時，

就預期對方在離開時

with the same point of view that you walked in with,

能帶著和你相同的觀點走，

there's really no chance for progress.

這樣想是不可能有進展的。

Instead, we need to think about conversations as a climbing wall

反之，

我們應該把談話想成是爬牆。

to do a variant of what my dad did during this trip,

把我爸爸在這趟旅程的做法改變一下，

pocketing a little nugget of information here,

在這裡收集一些資訊，

adapting his approach there.

在那裡調整一下他的方法。

That's actually a technique borrowed from formal debate

那其實是從正式辯論借來的技巧。

where you present an idea,

在辯論中，你提出一個想法，

it's attacked and you adapt and re-explain,

想法被攻擊，你把想法 調整之後再次解釋，

it's attacked again,

再被攻擊，

you adapt and re-explain.

你再調整和重新解釋。

The whole expectation is that your idea gets better

最終期望做到的是，透過挑戰和批評

讓你的想法調整得更好。

through challenge and criticism.

And the evidence from really high-stakes international negotiations

來自高賭注國際協商的證據顯示，

suggests that that's what successful negotiators do as well.

成功的談判者也會用這種方式。

They go into conversations

當他們進入談話時，

expecting to learn from the challenges that they will receive

會預期要從自己受到的挑戰中學習，

to use objections to make their ideas and proposals better.

利用反對意見 讓他們的想法和提案變得更好。

Development is in some way a service that we can do for others

在某種層面上，「發展改進」 是我們能為他人做的服務，

and that others can do for us.

也是他人能為我們做的服務。

It makes the ideas sharper,

發展改進，能讓想法變得更犀利，

but the relationships warmer.

卻讓關係變得更溫暖。

Curiosity can be relationship magic

好奇是關係中的魔法。

and development can be rocket fuel for your ideas.

發展改進則是火箭燃料， 推動你的想法。

But there are some situations

但有些情況下，

where it just feels like it's not worth the bother.

感覺就是不值得浪費心力了。

And in those cases

那些情況會出現

it can be because the purpose of the discussion isn't clear.

有可能是因為討論的目的並不清楚。

I think back to how my dad went into those conversations

回想起來，我爸爸在進入那些談話時，

with a really clear sense of purpose.

都對談話的目的非常清楚。

He was there to learn, to listen, to share his point of view.

他要去學習、去傾聽、 去分享他的觀點。

And once that purpose is understood by both parties,

一旦雙方都能了解目的，

then you can begin to move on.

就可以開始走下去，

Lay out our vision for the future.

畫出對未來的遠景，

Make a decision.

做出決策，

Get funding.

取得資金，

Then you can move on to principles.

接著就可以進入到原則。

When people shared with my dad their hopes for America,

當大家和我爸爸分享

他們對美國的希望，

that's where they started with the big picture,

那時他們就會從大局開始談，

not with personality or politics or policies.

而不是從人格、政治、政策開始談。

Because inadvertently they were doing something

因為他們不經意之中所做的事，

that we do naturally with outsiders

我們通常會對外人 很自然就能做出來，

and find it really difficult sometimes to do with insiders.

但有時卻覺得對圈內人很難做到。

They painted in broad strokes

在跳入細節之前，

before digging into the details.

他們先用了大刷子來畫圖。

But maybe you live in the same zip code or the same house

也許你們住在同一個 行政區或同一間房子裡，

and it feels like none of that common ground is there today.

而感覺起來今天 雙方的那些共同點都沒了。

Then you might consider a version of disagreement time travel,

那麼，你可以考慮做一種 「不同意的時間旅行」。

asking your counterpart to articulate what kind of neighborhood, country,

請對方清楚描述

他們會希望鄰坊、

國家、世界、社區

world, community,

they want a year from now,

在一年或十年之後變成什麼樣子。

a decade from now.

It is very tempting to dwell in present tensions

人很容易會在眼前的 緊繃局勢下思索，

and get bogged down in practicalities.

而陷入實際性的泥沼中。

Inviting people to inhabit a future possibility

邀請對方轉向未來的可能性，

opens up the chance of a conversation with purpose.

便能開啟新的機會， 進行有目的的談話。

Earlier in my career,

職涯初期，我為 紐西蘭的副總理工作，

I worked for the deputy prime minister of New Zealand

who practiced a version of this technique.

他就用了一種像這樣的技巧。

New Zealand's electoral system is designed for unlikely friendships,

紐西蘭的選舉制度就是 為了不可能的友誼而設計：

coalitions, alliances,

聯盟、結盟、

memoranda of understanding are almost inevitable.

諒解備忘錄幾乎都是無可避免的。

And this particular government set-up had some of almost everything --

這種特別的政府結構 幾乎什麼都有一點——

small government conservatives, liberals,

右翼保守份子、自由主義者、

the Indigenous people's party, the Green Party.

原住民的黨派、綠黨。

And I recently asked him,

最近，我問他，

what does it take to bring a group like that together

要花什麼代價才能 讓那樣的團體能結合在一起，

but hold them together?

且持續團結下去？

He said, "Someone, you, has to take responsibility

他說：「某個人，你，

必須要扛起責任，

for reminding them of their shared purpose:

提醒大家共同目標是什麼：

caring for people.”

照顧人民。」

If we are more focused on what makes us different than the same,

如果把焦點放在 我們的「異」而非「同」，

then every debate is a fight.

那每一場辯論都會是場戰鬥。

If we put our challenges and our problems before us,

如果把挑戰和問題排在最前面，

then every potential ally becomes an adversary.

那麼每一個潛在的盟友 都會變成敵人。

But as my dad packed his bags for the three flights, 25 hours,

但，當我爸爸打包行李搭三架飛機

花二十五個小時 飛一萬哩回到澳洲時，

10,000 miles back to Australia,

he was also packing a collection of new perspectives,

他也帶上了他這趟旅程 所收集到的新觀點，

a new way of navigating conversations,

在談話找到方向的新方法，

and a whole set of new stories and experiences to share.

以及一大堆新故事 和經歷可以來分享。

But he was also leaving those behind

但他也把這些都留在身後，

with everyone that he'd interacted with.

留給他所互動的每個人。

We love unlikely friendships when they look like this.

我們都很喜歡這種 「不可能的友誼」，

We've just forgotten how to make them.

我們只是忘了如何建立這種友誼。

And amid the cacophony of cable news

身陷在有線電視新聞的雜音中、

and the awkwardness of family dinners,

家庭晚餐的尷尬中、

and the hostility of corporate meetings,

企業會議的敵意中，

each of us has this --

我們每個人都有機會

the opportunity to walk into every encounter,

可以像我爸爸 走下那架飛機一樣，

like my dad walked off that plane,

走入每一次的相遇，

to choose curiosity over clash,

選擇好奇而非衝突，

to expect development of your ideas through discussion

期望在討論中去發展改進你的想法，

and to anchor in common purpose.

並立基在共同的目的上。

That's what really world-class persuaders do

那才是世界級遊說者的做法：

to build constructive conversations

建立建設性談話，

and move them forward.

並讓談話能向前進展。

It's how our world will move forward too.

我們的世界也是這樣向前進展的。

Thank you.

謝謝。