Can a divided America heal? | Jonathan Haidt

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Melody Tang

Chris Anderson: So, Jon, this feels scary.

克里斯·安德森： 所以，強，這感覺蠻可怕的。

強納森海特：是啊。

Jonathan Haidt: Yeah.

克：目前世界感覺像是在一種

CA: It feels like the world is in a place

that we haven't seen for a long time.

我們很久沒有經歷過的狀態。

People don't just disagree in the way that we're familiar with,

人們不只是以我們熟悉的方式

on the left-right political divide.

不認同左派右派的政治分裂，

There are much deeper differences afoot.

還有更深的歧異在發生中。

What on earth is going on, and how did we get here?

這到底是怎麼回事， 而我們又是怎麼走到這一步？

強：這次是不一樣，

JH: This is different.

好像有大災難要降臨的感覺。

There's a much more apocalyptic sort of feeling.

Survey research by Pew Research shows

皮尤研究中心的調查研究顯示，

that the degree to which we feel that the other side is not just --

我們對另一方的感覺不只是…

we don't just dislike them; we strongly dislike them,

我們不只是不喜歡他們； 我們很強烈地不喜歡他們。

and we think that they are a threat to the nation.

而且我們認為他們是對國家的威脅。

Those numbers have been going up and up,

這些數字不斷在上升，

and those are over 50 percent now on both sides.

雙方的數字都已經高過 50%。

People are scared,

人們很恐懼，

because it feels like this is different than before; it's much more intense.

因為這個感覺和以往不同； 比以前更強烈。

當我在看任何一種社會難題時，

Whenever I look at any sort of social puzzle,

我都是應用道德心理學的 三項基本原則，

I always apply the three basic principles of moral psychology,

我認為在這裡也能有幫助。

and I think they'll help us here.

So the first thing that you have to always keep in mind

在思考政治問題時， 你一定要謹記的第一件事是

when you're thinking about politics

is that we're tribal.

我們都有部落性格。

We evolved for tribalism.

我們靠部落意識演化至今。

One of the simplest and greatest insights into human social nature

關於人類的社會天性， 最簡單且最偉大的名言

is the Bedouin proverb:

是一句貝多因諺語：

"Me against my brother;

「我對抗我的兄弟；

me and my brother against our cousin;

我和我的兄弟一起 對抗我們的表兄弟；

me and my brother and cousins against the stranger."

我和我的兄弟和表兄弟們 一起對抗陌生人。」

And that tribalism allowed us to create large societies

那個部落意識使我們 創造出大型社會，

and to come together in order to compete with others.

使我們結合在一起來與其他人抗爭。

That brought us out of the jungle and out of small groups,

它使我們脫離叢林、脫離小團體，

but it means that we have eternal conflict.

但那意味著我們永遠會有衝突。

The question you have to look at is:

你需要探討的問題是：

我們社會的哪些面向 使這些衝突更激烈，

What aspects of our society are making that more bitter,

and what are calming them down?

哪些能使衝突平靜下來？

CA: That's a very dark proverb.

克：那是個非常黑暗的諺語。

You're saying that that's actually baked into most people's mental wiring

你的意思是，實際上那是大部份人 天生就或多或少具有的心理面？

at some level?

JH: Oh, absolutely. This is just a basic aspect of human social cognition.

強：喔，絕對是。這只是 人類社會認知的一個基本面向。

但，我們也能 非常和平地住在一起，

But we can also live together really peacefully,

and we've invented all kinds of fun ways of, like, playing war.

而且我們發明了各種 有趣的活動，例如玩戰爭遊戲…

I mean, sports, politics --

我是指運動、政治…

these are all ways that we get to exercise this tribal nature

我們以這些方式來 體現我們的部落天性，

而不會真正傷到任何人。

without actually hurting anyone.

We're also really good at trade and exploration and meeting new people.

我們也很擅長貿易、 探索、認識新人。

所以你要知道我們的部落意識 是會上下起伏的，

So you have to see our tribalism as something that goes up or down --

而不是我們注定會一直彼此對抗，

it's not like we're doomed to always be fighting each other,

永遠不會有世界和平。

but we'll never have world peace.

CA: The size of that tribe can shrink or expand.

克：部落的大小可以縮小或擴大。

強：是的。

JH: Right.

克：我們所認定的「我們」、

CA: The size of what we consider "us"

and what we consider "other" or "them"

以及我們所認定的 「其他人」或「他們」，

can change.

大小都可能會改變。

And some people believed that process could continue indefinitely.

有些人相信，這個過程 可能無限期地持續下去。

JH: That's right.

強：沒錯。

CA: And we were indeed expanding the sense of tribe for a while.

克：我們的確持續在擴展這個部落。

JH: So this is, I think,

強：所以，我認為，

where we're getting at what's possibly the new left-right distinction.

我們應該要去了解 可能有種新的左右派區別。

I mean, the left-right as we've all inherited it,

我們大家目前承襲的左右派觀念

comes out of the labor versus capital distinction,

來自勞方對抗資方，

and the working class, and Marx.

勞動階級和馬克思主義。

But I think what we're seeing now, increasingly,

但我認為我們現在越來越會看到

is a divide in all the Western democracies

所有西方民主的分化，

between the people who want to stop at nation,

一端是觀念止於國家的人，

the people who are more parochial --

比較具有地方觀念的人…

and I don't mean that in a bad way --

我沒有任何負面的意思…

people who have much more of a sense of being rooted,

更有紮根觀念的人，

they care about their town, their community and their nation.

他們關心他們的鎮、 他們的社區、他們的國家。

And then those who are anti-parochial and who --

另一端則是反地方觀念的人，

whenever I get confused, I just think of the John Lennon song "Imagine."

每當我搞混時，我就想 約翰藍儂的歌「想像」：

「想像沒有國家， 沒有殺戮或戰死的理由。」

"Imagine there's no countries, nothing to kill or die for."

所以這些人想要比較全球性的治理，

And so these are the people who want more global governance,

they don't like nation states, they don't like borders.

他們不喜歡分國家、 他們不喜歡邊界。

你在歐洲也到處都能看到。

You see this all over Europe as well.

There's a great metaphor guy -- actually, his name is Shakespeare --

有個名字叫莎士比亞的 偉大的比喻家

writing ten years ago in Britain.

十年前在英國寫作，

He had a metaphor:

他有個比喻：

"Are we drawbridge-uppers or drawbridge-downers?"

「我們把開合橋向上拉 或是向下放？」

And Britain is divided 52-48 on that point.

那時英國人在那點的比例 是 52 對 48。

And America is divided on that point, too.

美國對這點也是分化的。

CA: And so, those of us who grew up with The Beatles

克：所以，我們這些 和披頭四一起長大的人，

and that sort of hippie philosophy of dreaming of a more connected world --

有著嬉皮哲學， 夢想著比較連結的世界，

it felt so idealistic and "how could anyone think badly about that?"

覺得很理想，且認為「怎麼 可能有人會把它做負面解讀？」

And what you're saying is that, actually,

你說的是，其實，

millions of people today feel that that isn't just silly;

現今有數百萬人 覺得那不只是愚蠢；

it's actually dangerous and wrong, and they're scared of it.

還是危險且錯誤的， 並且他們對此感到恐懼。

JH: I think the big issue, especially in Europe but also here,

強：我認為…特別是在歐洲， 但這裡也是一樣…

重要議題是移民問題。

is the issue of immigration.

我認為在此我們得要非常小心

And I think this is where we have to look very carefully

at the social science about diversity and immigration.

去看待關於多樣化 與移民的社會科學。

Once something becomes politicized,

任何事一旦被政治化，

once it becomes something that the left loves and the right --

一旦變成是左派喜歡、而右派…

then even the social scientists can't think straight about it.

甚至社會科學家對此 也無法清楚地思考。

多樣化在很多方面是好事。

Now, diversity is good in a lot of ways.

它顯然創造了更多的創新，

It clearly creates more innovation.

The American economy has grown enormously from it.

美國經濟因為它而大大成長。

Diversity and immigration do a lot of good things.

多樣性和移民帶來很多好處。

但，全球主義者看不到，

But what the globalists, I think, don't see,

what they don't want to see,

他們也不想看到的是，

is that ethnic diversity cuts social capital and trust.

種族多樣性會削減 社會資本和互相的信任。

There's a very important study by Robert Putnam,

羅勃·普南有一個非常重要的研究，

the author of "Bowling Alone,"

他是《獨自打保齡球》的作者，

looking at social capital databases.

這研究探究了社會資本資料庫。

And basically, the more people feel that they are the same,

基本上，越多人認為他們是相同的，

the more they trust each other,

他們越信任彼此，

他們就會成為財富重新分配的國家。

the more they can have a redistributionist welfare state.

斯堪的納維亞國家如此美好

Scandinavian countries are so wonderful

是因為它們一直保有著 同質的小國家傳統，

because they have this legacy of being small, homogenous countries.

And that leads to a progressive welfare state,

使它們持續進步成為福利國家，

a set of progressive left-leaning values, which says,

擁有一組進步的左傾價值觀，吶喊著：

"Drawbridge down! The world is a great place.

「把開合橋放下來！ 世界是個很棒的地方。

People in Syria are suffering -- we must welcome them in."

敘利亞的人民在受苦， 我們必須歡迎他們進來。」

那是件很美好的事。

And it's a beautiful thing.

But if, and I was in Sweden this summer,

但，如果今年夏天我在瑞典，

if the discourse in Sweden is fairly politically correct

如果這說法在瑞典 是相當政治正確的，

and they can't talk about the downsides,

而且他們無法談論不利面，

結果你就會帶進很多人。

you end up bringing a lot of people in.

That's going to cut social capital,

那將會削減社會資本，

it makes it hard to have a welfare state

就很難仍是福利國家，

and they might end up, as we have in America,

他們可能最後會和美國一樣，

with a racially divided, visibly racially divided, society.

成為種族分化、 明顯可見的種族分化的社會。

So this is all very uncomfortable to talk about.

所以談論這些讓人很不舒服。

但我認為，特別是歐洲， 我們也是，要正視這個議題。

But I think this is the thing, especially in Europe and for us, too,

但我認為，特別是歐洲，我們也是， 要正視這個議題。

we need to be looking at.

克：你是說，那些理性的人，

CA: You're saying that people of reason,

people who would consider themselves not racists,

自認為不是種族主義者，

but moral, upstanding people,

而是有道德、正直的人，

有理由可以說，人類就是太不同了；

have a rationale that says humans are just too different;

以致於若把太不同的人混合在一起，

that we're in danger of overloading our sense of what humans are capable of,

我們可能要面對不知道 人們會做出什麼的危險。

by mixing in people who are too different.

強：是的，但我可以 把它說得更容易明白。

JH: Yes, but I can make it much more palatable

by saying it's not necessarily about race.

分化不一定與種族有關。 它與文化有關。

It's about culture.

有位名為凱倫·史坦納得政治科學家 做了一項很棒的研究。

There's wonderful work by a political scientist named Karen Stenner,

這個研究指出當人們覺得

who shows that when people have a sense

that we are all united, we're all the same,

我們全都團結一致， 我們都一樣，

there are many people who have a predisposition to authoritarianism.

就會有很多人本來傾向於 專制獨裁主義。

當這些人覺得當我們的社會 與道德秩序似乎不會受到威脅時，

Those people aren't particularly racist

when they feel as through there's not a threat

to our social and moral order.

他們不見得是種族主義者。

But if you prime them experimentally

但如果你實驗性地先讓他們

by thinking we're coming apart, people are getting more different,

認為我們逐漸在分化， 人們越來越不同，

那時他們會比較有種族主義、 仇視同性戀，要把異類趕出去。

then they get more racist, homophobic, they want to kick out the deviants.

So it's in part that you get an authoritarian reaction.

所以在這部分會有獨裁主義的反應。

The left, following through the Lennonist line --

那些堅持藍儂主義路線的左派──

the John Lennon line --

約翰·藍儂路線──

does things that create an authoritarian reaction.

會做出造成獨裁主義反應的事。

We're certainly seeing that in America with the alt-right.

我們在美國的另類右派看到這現象。

我們在英國看到， 我們在歐洲各處都看到這個現象。

We saw it in Britain, we've seen it all over Europe.

但比較正面的部份是，

But the more positive part of that

is that I think the localists, or the nationalists, are actually right --

我認為本土派份子， 或國家主義者，其實是對的。

that, if you emphasize our cultural similarity,

如果你強調我們的文化相似性，

種族其實沒那麼重要。

then race doesn't actually matter very much.

所以用社會同化的方式處理移民， 能消除很多這些問題。

So an assimilationist approach to immigration

所以用社會同化的方式處理移民， 能消除很多這些問題。

removes a lot of these problems.

And if you value having a generous welfare state,

如果你想要有個慷慨的福利國家，

你必須強調我們都是一樣的。

you've got to emphasize that we're all the same.

CA: OK, so rising immigration and fears about that

克：好，所以目前分化的成因之一

are one of the causes of the current divide.

是越來越多移民， 以及人們對此狀況的恐懼。

What are other causes?

其他成因是什麼？

JH: The next principle of moral psychology

強：道德心理學的下一個原則

is that intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.

是人們的直覺會先發生， 然後策略性推理才跟進。

You've probably heard the term "motivated reasoning"

你可能聽過「動機性推理」

or "confirmation bias."

或「確認偏誤」這些詞。

There's some really interesting work

有個很有趣的研究在探討

on how our high intelligence and our verbal abilities

我們的高度智慧以及言語能力

might have evolved not to help us find out the truth,

可能演化成不是協助我們找到真相，

but to help us manipulate each other, defend our reputation ...

而是協助我們操弄彼此、 捍衛我們的名聲…

We're really, really good at justifying ourselves.

我們非常非常擅長爲自己辯護。

And when you bring group interests into account,

當你把群體利益納入考量，

so it's not just me, it's my team versus your team,

那就不只是我一人， 而是我的團隊對抗你的團隊，

在評估證明你那一方錯的證據時，

whereas if you're evaluating evidence that your side is wrong,

we just can't accept that.

我們就是無法接受。

So this is why you can't win a political argument.

這就是為什麼 在政治爭執中你贏不了。

If you're debating something,

如果你在辯論某事，

you can't persuade the person with reasons and evidence,

你不可能以理由和證據說服對方，

because that's not the way reasoning works.

因為推理不是這樣運作的。

So now, give us the internet, give us Google:

現在，我們有互聯網、 有 Google：

"I heard that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

「我聽說歐巴馬在肯亞出生， 讓我 Google 一下。

Let me Google that -- oh my God! 10 million hits! Look, he was!"

天啊！點閱率有千萬！那就是真的！」

CA: So this has come as an unpleasant surprise to a lot of people.

克：所以對很多人來說， 這是不愉快的驚喜。

Social media has often been framed by techno-optimists

社交媒體常常被 科技樂觀主義者給塑造成

as this great connecting force that would bring people together.

一股能讓人們團結的偉大動力。

And there have been some unexpected counter-effects to that.

但它也造成了一些未預期的反效果。

JH: That's right.

強：是的。這就是為什麼我很喜歡

That's why I'm very enamored of yin-yang views

以陰陽和左右來 分析人類天性的觀點──

of human nature and left-right --

that each side is right about certain things,

每一方都對某些事有正確的看法，

but then it goes blind to other things.

但他們對其他事是盲目的。

And so the left generally believes that human nature is good:

所以一般來說左派相信人性本善：

bring people together, knock down the walls and all will be well.

團結、拆除圍牆，一切就會很好；

The right -- social conservatives, not libertarians --

一般來說，右派── 社會保守派、非自由主義者，

social conservatives generally believe people can be greedy

相信人們很貪婪、性衝動、自私，

and sexual and selfish,

and we need regulation, and we need restrictions.

我們需要規定，我們需要限制。

So, yeah, if you knock down all the walls,

所以，是的，如果你拆了所有圍牆，

allow people to communicate all over the world,

讓全世界的人能夠溝通，

you get a lot of porn and a lot of racism.

你會得到很多色情片和種族主義。

CA: So help us understand.

克：請爲我們澄清一下。 這些人類天性…

These principles of human nature have been with us forever.

本來就一直存在。

What's changed that's deepened this feeling of division?

到底是哪些改變 加深了這個分化的感覺？

JH: You have to see six to ten different threads all coming together.

強：這裡有六到十條 不同的脈絡匯集在一起，

I'll just list a couple of them.

我就只談其中幾條。

So in America, one of the big -- actually, America and Europe --

在美國， 其實應該說在美國與歐洲，

one of the biggest ones is World War II.

最重大的一條就是第二次大戰。

There's interesting research from Joe Henrich and others

約翰·漢里克與其他人 做了個有趣的研究，

that says if your country was at war,

研究指出，如果你的國家正在打仗，

especially when you were young,

特別是在你年輕的時候，

then we test you 30 years later in a commons dilemma

在三十年後讓你做公共困境測驗

or a prisoner's dilemma,

或是囚徒困境測驗，

you're more cooperative.

你會比較合作。

Because of our tribal nature, if you're --

因為部落的天性，如果你…

my parents were teenagers during World War II,

在二次大戰時， 我的父母還是青少年，

and they would go out looking for scraps of aluminum

他們會出去尋找廢棄鋁製物，

to help the war effort.

以協助戰爭。

I mean, everybody pulled together.

大家同心協力。

And so then these people go on,

這些人長大成人後，

they rise up through business and government,

他們在事業上及政府機關內

they take leadership positions.

取得領導級的位置。

They're really good at compromise and cooperation.

他們非常擅長妥協與合作。

They all retire by the '90s.

到了 90 年代他們都退休了。

So we're left with baby boomers by the end of the '90s.

90 年代末期，我們就只有 嬰兒潮時代出生的人，

And their youth was spent fighting each other within each country,

他們的年輕時光 都花在自己國家的內部抗爭。

in 1968 and afterwards.

那是在 1986 年及那以後。

The loss of the World War II generation, "The Greatest Generation,"

所以，失去二戰大戰世代， 即「最偉大的世代」的損失

is huge.

非常大。

So that's one.

這是其一。

Another, in America, is the purification of the two parties.

在美國，另一條脈絡是兩黨派的淨化。

他們以前是開放的共和黨員 及保守的民主黨員。

There used to be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.

所以在二十世紀中期， 美國是真的兩黨化的。

So America had a mid-20th century that was really bipartisan.

But because of a variety of factors that started things moving,

但由於各種因素讓一切開始變動，

到了 90 年代，我們有了 淨化後的自由黨派及保守黨派。

by the 90's, we had a purified liberal party and conservative party.

So now, the people in either party really are different,

所以，現在，兩黨派的人很不同。

我們雙方真的不希望 我們的孩子彼此結婚，

and we really don't want our children to marry them,

在 60 年代時，這沒那麼重要。

which, in the '60s, didn't matter very much.

So, the purification of the parties.

所以，這是黨派的淨化。

第三條脈絡是互聯網，如我前面所說，

Third is the internet and, as I said,

it's just the most amazing stimulant for post-hoc reasoning and demonization.

對於事後推論及妖魔化而言， 互聯網是最驚人的刺激物。

CA: The tone of what's happening on the internet now is quite troubling.

克：互聯網現況讓人十分不安。

I just did a quick search on Twitter about the election

我在 Twitter 上做了一個 關於選舉的快速研究，

and saw two tweets next to each other.

看到兩個推特訊息並列。

One, against a picture of racist graffiti:

一個是針對一張種族歧視塗鴉的圖片：

"This is disgusting!

「這讓人厭惡！

Ugliness in this country, brought to us by #Trump."

這是#川普帶給這個國家的醜陋面。」

And then the next one is:

下一則則是：

"Crooked Hillary dedication page. Disgusting!"

「騙子希拉蕊專屬網頁。 讓人厭惡！」

So this idea of "disgust" is troubling to me.

這個「讓人厭惡」的想法 讓我覺得憂慮。

Because you can have an argument or a disagreement about something,

因為你可以爭論或是不同意某事，

you can get angry at someone.

你可以對某人生氣。

Disgust, I've heard you say, takes things to a much deeper level.

我聽到你說，厭惡會把狀況 帶到更深的層級。

JH: That's right. Disgust is different.

強：對的。厭惡是不同的。

Anger -- you know, I have kids.

生氣…你知道，我有孩子。

They fight 10 times a day,

他們每天會吵架十次，

and they love each other 30 times a day.

他們每天愛彼此三十次。

You just go back and forth: you get angry, you're not angry;

你只是來來回回， 你生氣了，你不氣了；

你生氣了，你不氣了；

you're angry, you're not angry.

But disgust is different.

但厭惡不同。

Disgust paints the person as subhuman, monstrous,

厭惡會把對方描繪成 低於人類的、如怪物的、

deformed, morally deformed.

畸形的、道德上畸形的。

Disgust is like indelible ink.

厭惡就像…難以抹除的墨水。

There's research from John Gottman on marital therapy.

約翰·葛特曼做了一個 關於婚姻治療的研究，

If you look at the faces -- if one of the couple shows disgust or contempt,

如果你看面孔…如果夫妻中 有一人展現出厭惡或輕視，

that's a predictor that they're going to get divorced soon,

你就可以預言他們很快會離婚；

whereas if they show anger, that doesn't predict anything,

但如果他們呈現的是生氣， 就無法預言任何事，

因為如果你能好好處理生氣， 它其實是好的。

because if you deal with anger well, it actually is good.

這個選舉是不同的。

So this election is different.

Donald Trump personally uses the word "disgust" a lot.

川普本人就常常使用 「厭惡」這個字，

He's very germ-sensitive, so disgust does matter a lot --

他對細菌很敏感，所以對他而言， 厭惡確實很重要，

more for him, that's something unique to him --

那是他獨有的東西…

but as we demonize each other more,

但當我們越將彼此妖魔化，

and again, through the Manichaean worldview,

再度透過摩尼教的世界觀，

the idea that the world is a battle between good and evil

主張世界是善惡對戰的世界觀。

as this has been ramping up,

隨著這種觀點加速散播，

we're more likely not just to say they're wrong or I don't like them,

很可能我們不只說他們錯了 或是不喜歡他們，

我們會說他們很邪惡、 他們是惡魔、

but we say they're evil, they're satanic,

they're disgusting, they're revolting.

他們讓人厭惡、他們令人作嘔。

And then we want nothing to do with them.

接著，我們不要與他們 扯上任何關係。

And that's why I think we're seeing it, for example, on campus now.

那就是為什麼我認為會看見… 比如，現在在校園中，

We're seeing more the urge to keep people off campus,

我們看到更多人強烈地 將一些人趕出校園，

silence them, keep them away.

不讓他們說話，讓他們遠離。

I'm afraid that this whole generation of young people,

恐怕這整個年輕人的世代，

if their introduction to politics involves a lot of disgust,

如果他們對政治的認識 牽涉到許多的厭惡，

they're not going to want to be involved in politics as they get older.

當他們長大時， 他們不會想要涉入政治。

CA: So how do we deal with that?

克：所以我們要如何處理厭惡？

Disgust. How do you defuse disgust?

你要如何消除厭惡感？

JH: You can't do it with reasons.

強：你無法用講理的方式處理。

I think ...

我認為…

我研究厭惡很多年了， 我常常會去思考情緒。

I studied disgust for many years, and I think about emotions a lot.

And I think that the opposite of disgust is actually love.

我認為，厭惡的相反其實就是愛。

Love is all about, like ...

愛就是，像…

Disgust is closing off, borders.

厭惡是關閉、設界線。

Love is about dissolving walls.

愛則是融化牆壁。

So personal relationships, I think,

所以，個人關係，我認為，

are probably the most powerful means we have.

可能是我們擁有最強大的手段。

You can be disgusted by a group of people,

你可能會對一群人感到厭惡，

but then you meet a particular person

但接著你遇到了某個特別的人，

and you genuinely discover that they're lovely.

你真正發現到他們其實很美好。

And then gradually that chips away or changes your category as well.

那會一點一滴改變你的類別。

The tragedy is, Americans used to be much more mixed up in the their towns

悲劇是，美國人過去在鎮上 是更混雜在一起的，

by left-right or politics.

左右派或政治上混雜在一起。

And now that it's become this great moral divide,

現在，那變成了很大的道德分化，

there's a lot of evidence that we're moving to be near people

有很多證據顯示我們越來越去

who are like us politically.

靠近在政治上相近的人。

It's harder to find somebody who's on the other side.

很難找到在另一邊的人。

So they're over there, they're far away.

所以他們在那邊，他們很遙遠。

It's harder to get to know them.

越來越難去認識他們。

CA: What would you say to someone or say to Americans,

克：對某人，或是對美國人、

people generally,

對一般的人，你會如何說？

about what we should understand about each other

我們應該了解彼此的什麼

that might help us rethink for a minute

才能協助我們重新思考一下

this "disgust" instinct?

這個「厭惡」的直覺？

強：好的…

JH: Yes.

A really important thing to keep in mind --

真正要牢記在心的重點是，

there's research by political scientist Alan Abramowitz,

政治科學家艾倫·亞伯拉莫維茲 有一項研究

showing that American democracy is increasingly governed

顯示美國民主越來越被

by what's called "negative partisanship."

所謂的「消極的黨派關係」所掌控。

That means you think, OK there's a candidate,

那表示，你會想， 好，這裡有個候選人，

你喜歡這個候選人， 你投給這個候選人。

you like the candidate, you vote for the candidate.

But with the rise of negative advertising

但隨著負面廣告出現，

and social media and all sorts of other trends,

還有社交媒體、各種其他的趨勢，

increasingly, the way elections are done

漸漸地，選舉進行的方式

is that each side tries to make the other side so horrible, so awful,

變成每一方都試著讓對方 看起來很糟糕、差勁，

that you'll vote for my guy by default.

糟到讓你會理所當然投給我的人。

And so as we more and more vote against the other side

所以隨著我們投票 越來越是反對另一方，

and not for our side,

而非支持我方，

you have to keep in mind that if people are on the left,

你得牢記在心，如果人們是左派，

they think, "Well, I used to think that Republicans were bad,

他們會想：「我以前認為共和黨很差，

but now Donald Trump proves it.

現在川普證明了這一點。

And now every Republican, I can paint with all the things

現在我可以把 我對川普的看法投射到

that I think about Trump."

每一個共和黨員。」

And that's not necessarily true.

那不一定是對的。

They're generally not very happy with their candidate.

他們大多對他們的候選人不是很滿意。

這是美國史上最嚴重的 對黨派負面的選舉。

This is the most negative partisanship election in American history.

So you have to first separate your feelings about the candidate

所以你首先要將你對候選人的感受，

from your feelings about the people who are given a choice.

從你對那些有選擇的人的感受分開。

And then you have to realize that,

接著，你得要了解，

because we all live in a separate moral world --

因為我們都住在 不同的道德世界中──

the metaphor I use in the book is that we're all trapped in "The Matrix,"

我在書中用的比喻是 我們被困在《駭客任務》的母體中，

or each moral community is a matrix, a consensual hallucination.

或是說，每個道德社群 就是一個母體，一種交感幻覺，

And so if you're within the blue matrix,

所以如果你身在一個藍色母體中，

everything's completely compelling that the other side --

一切都非常有說服力，另一邊…

they're troglodytes, they're racists, they're the worst people in the world,

他們是穴居人、種族主義者、 世界上最差的人，

and you have all the facts to back that up.

你有一堆事實可以支持這想法。

But somebody in the next house from yours

但你隔壁鄰居

is living in a different moral matrix.

住在不同的道德母體中，

They live in a different video game,

他們住在不同的電玩遊戲中，

and they see a completely different set of facts.

他們看見的事實完全不同。

And each one sees different threats to the country.

每個人看到對國家的威脅都不同。

And what I've found from being in the middle

而我身在中間試圖了解雙方時，

and trying to understand both sides is: both sides are right.

我發現的是：雙方都是對的。

There are a lot of threats to this country,

這個國家面臨許多威脅，

而每一方在本質上 都無法看見所有的威脅。

and each side is constitutionally incapable of seeing them all.

CA: So, are you saying that we almost need a new type of empathy?

克：所以你的意思是， 我們說是需要一種新的同理心？

Empathy is traditionally framed as:

傳統的同理心是這樣的：

"Oh, I feel your pain. I can put myself in your shoes."

「喔，我感受到你的痛。 我能站在你的立場。」

And we apply it to the poor, the needy, the suffering.

我們把它用在窮人、 有需要的人、受苦的人身上，

We don't usually apply it to people who we feel as other,

我們通常不會用在那些 我們認為是「其他人」的人、

or we're disgusted by.

或我們討厭的人身上。 強：沒錯，我們不會。

JH: No. That's right.

CA: What would it look like to build that type of empathy?

克：建立那種同理心 會是什麼樣子的？

JH: Actually, I think ...

強：其實，我認為…

Empathy is a very, very hot topic in psychology,

在心理學，同理心是個 非常火紅的主題，

and it's a very popular word on the left in particular.

特別是在左派，它是個熱門用詞。

同理心是件好事。

Empathy is a good thing, and empathy for the preferred classes of victims.

偏好把同理心給予受害者。

So it's important to empathize

因此，重視我們左派認為 非常重要的團體非常重要。

with the groups that we on the left think are so important.

That's easy to do, because you get points for that.

那很容易，因為你這麼做可以得分。

But empathy really should get you points if you do it when it's hard to do.

同理心應該是在

很難有同理心的情況下 產生才能夠得分才對。

And, I think ...

而我認為…

You know, we had a long 50-year period of dealing with our race problems

我們處理種族問題以及合法歧視

and legal discrimination,

已有五十年之久了，

and that was our top priority for a long time

那一直是我們的首要任務，

and it still is important.

現在仍然很重要。

But I think this year,

但，我認為，今年，

I'm hoping it will make people see

我希望人們能夠看見

that we have an existential threat on our hands.

我們手上有個關係存在的威脅。

Our left-right divide, I believe,

我相信，我們的左右派分化是

is by far the most important divide we face.

到目前為止我們面臨過最重要的分化。

We still have issues about race and gender and LGBT,

我們仍然有種族、性別、 同性雙性與跨性的議題，

but this is the urgent need of the next 50 years,

但這是未來五十年的迫切需求，

and things aren't going to get better on their own.

這些情況不會自己好轉。

所以我們得要做很多的制度改革，

So we're going to need to do a lot of institutional reforms,

and we could talk about that,

我們可以談那些，

但那會非常冗長而且不容易說清楚。

but that's like a whole long, wonky conversation.

But I think it starts with people realizing that this is a turning point.

但我想，我們要從使人們 了解到這是個轉捩點開始。

And yes, we need a new kind of empathy.

是的，我們需要一種新的同理心。

We need to realize:

我們需要了解：

this is what our country needs,

這是我們的國家需要的，

and this is what you need if you don't want to --

這是你需要的，如果你不想要…

Raise your hand if you want to spend the next four years

如果你想要讓接下來四年 和去年一樣生氣和擔心，

as angry and worried as you've been for the last year -- raise your hand.

請舉起你的手。

如果你想從這當中逃脫，

So if you want to escape from this,

read Buddha, read Jesus, read Marcus Aurelius.

去讀佛、去讀耶穌、去讀奧里略。

They have all kinds of great advice for how to drop the fear,

他們有各種很好的建議 教你放下恐懼、

reframe things,

重新組織事物、

stop seeing other people as your enemy.

別再把其他人視為你的敵人。

There's a lot of guidance in ancient wisdom for this kind of empathy.

對於這種同理心， 古人智慧中有許多教導。

克：我有最後一個問題。

CA: Here's my last question:

以個人層面來說， 人們能做什麼來協助痊癒？

Personally, what can people do to help heal?

JH: Yeah, it's very hard to just decide to overcome your deepest prejudices.

強：是的，很難去直接 決定要克服你最深的偏見。

And there's research showing

有研究顯示

that political prejudices are deeper and stronger than race prejudices

目前在我們國家中， 政治偏見比種族偏見

in the country now.

更深、更強。

So I think you have to make an effort -- that's the main thing.

所以我認為，你得付出努力… 這是最主要的。

Make an effort to actually meet somebody.

努力去真正認識別人。

Everybody has a cousin, a brother-in-law,

每個人都會有個表兄弟、連襟、

somebody who's on the other side.

有某個人是在另一方的。

So, after this election --

所以，在這個選舉之後…

wait a week or two,

等一週或兩週，

because it's probably going to feel awful for one of you --

因為你們當中有一方 可能會感覺糟透了…

等幾週之後， 向對方伸出手，說你想談談。

but wait a couple weeks, and then reach out and say you want to talk.

And before you do it,

在你這麼做之前，

read Dale Carnegie, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" --

先讀讀卡內基的 《如何贏取友誼與影響他人》…

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

我是非常認真的。

I'm totally serious.

You'll learn techniques if you start by acknowledging,

你會學到技巧… 如果你用認可來開場，

if you start by saying,

如果你開場時說：

"You know, we don't agree on a lot,

「你知道，我們很多意見相左，

鮑伯叔叔，但你有一點 是我真的很敬佩的。」

but one thing I really respect about you, Uncle Bob,"

或「…你們保守派有一點 是我真的…」

or "... about you conservatives, is ... "

And you can find something.

你就會發現某些事。

如果你用欣賞來開場， 它就像魔法一樣。

If you start with some appreciation, it's like magic.

This is one of the main things I've learned

這是我主要學到的東西之一，

that I take into my human relationships.

我把它帶到我的人類關係當中。

I still make lots of stupid mistakes,

我仍然會犯很多愚蠢的錯誤，

but I'm incredibly good at apologizing now,

但現在我非常擅長道歉、

and at acknowledging what somebody was right about.

擅長認可別人對的部份。

如果你那樣做，

And if you do that,

then the conversation goes really well, and it's actually really fun.

對話進行就會非常順利， 其實還挺好玩的。

CA: Jon, it's absolutely fascinating speaking with you.

克：能與您談話真的是非常棒。

It really does feel like the ground that we're on

真的感覺像是…我們的立基之地

is a ground populated by deep questions of morality and human nature.

上面有關於道德及 人類天性的深刻問題。

Your wisdom couldn't be more relevant.

您提供的智慧非常有意義。

Thank you so much for sharing this time with us.

非常謝謝您這次能與我們分享。

JH: Thanks, Chris.

強：謝謝，克里斯。

JH: Thanks, everyone.

強：謝謝各位。

(Applause)

（掌聲）