How to disagree productively and find common ground | Julia Dhar

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: congmei Han

Some days, it feels like the only thing we can agree on

有些時候，感覺起來， 我們唯一能夠取得的共識就是

is that we can't agree on anything.

我們沒有任何共識。

Public discourse is broken.

公眾論述已經出了問題。

And we feel that everywhere --

我們覺得，所有地方——

panelists on TV are screaming at each other,

電視節目上的與談人 對著彼此嚷叫，

we go online to find community and connection,

我們上網去找社群和連結，

and we end up leaving feeling angry and alienated.

最後卻感到格格不入， 氣呼呼地離開。

In everyday life, probably because everyone else is yelling,

在日常生活中， 可能因為每個人都在吼叫，

we are so scared to get into an argument

我們很害怕捲入

完全不願意參與的爭執當中。

that we're willing not to engage at all.

Contempt has replaced conversation.

輕視已經取代了對話。

My mission in life is to help us disagree productively.

我人生的任務就是要協助我們 用有生產力的方式來表示不同意。

To find ways to bring truth to light, to bring new ideas to life.

找到方式，將真相揭露出來， 讓新想法有生存空間。

I think -- I hope --

我認為——我希望——

that there is a model for structured disagreement

有一個模型可用來 有結構地表示不同意，

that's kind of mutually respectful

且它要確保雙方互相尊重，

and assumes a genuine desire to persuade and be persuaded.

並且假設雙方都是真心 想要去說服和被說服。

And to uncover it, let me take you back a little bit.

在揭開它的面紗之前， 讓我先帶各位回首一下過去。

So, when I was 10 years old, I loved arguing.

我十歲時，很喜歡爭論。

This, like, tantalizing possibility

其誘人的地方在於你有可能

that you could convince someone of your point of view,

可以讓別人接受你的觀點，

just with the power of your words.

且只靠你話語的力量就辦到。

And perhaps unsurprisingly,

可能不太讓人意外，

my parents and teachers loved this somewhat less.

我的父母和老師就沒有 這麼喜歡這件事了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And in much the same way as they decided

就如同他們認定

that four-year-old Julia might benefit from gymnastics to burn off some energy,

四歲的我用練體操 來消耗一些能量會比較好，

they decided that I might benefit from joining a debate team.

他們也認定我加入 辯論小組會比較好。

That is, kind of, go somewhere to argue where they were not.

這有點像是，去他們 看不見的地方爭論。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

For the uninitiated,

對於不諳此道的人來說， 正式辯論的前提是非常直接的：

the premises of formal debate are really straightforward:

there's a big idea on the table --

有一個很大的想法被提出來——

that we support civil disobedience, that we favor free trade --

可能是我們支持公民不服從， 可能是我們偏好自由貿易——

and one group of people who speaks in favor of that idea,

然後一組人要支持這個想法，

and one against.

另一組則反對。

My first debate

我的第一次辯論是在坎培拉女子 文法學校中空落的會堂裡進行，

in the cavernous auditorium of Canberra Girls Grammar School

was kind of a bundle of all of the worst mistakes

我差不多把你在 有線電視新聞上所看到

所有最糟糕的錯誤通通都犯了。

that you see on cable news.

It felt easier to me to attack the person making the argument

我覺得，攻擊在做 論述的人比較容易，

rather than the substance of the ideas themselves.

攻擊想法本身的本質比較困難。

When that same person challenged my ideas,

當同一個人挑戰我的想法時，

it felt terrible, I felt humiliated and ashamed.

感覺很差，我會覺得 被羞辱且很丟臉。

And it felt to me like the sophisticated response to that

我覺得，在那樣的情況下， 最老練的反應

was to be as extreme as possible.

應該是要做到越極端越好。

And despite this very shaky entry into the world of debate, I loved it.

雖然我的這次入場踉踉蹌蹌， 我還是很愛辯論。

I saw the possibility, and over many years worked really hard at it,

我看見了可能性， 在許多年的非常努力之後，

became really skilled at the technical craft of debate.

我對於辯論的技藝變得非常在行。

I went on to win the World Schools Debating Championships three times.

我接著在世界中學辯論大賽 三次奪冠。

I know, you're just finding out that this is a thing.

我知道，你們剛剛才知道 原來有這種東西。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But it wasn't until I started coaching debaters,

但，一直到我開始指導

persuaders who are really at the top of their game,

最優秀的辯論者、說服者，

that I actually got it.

我才真正懂得了辯論。

The way that you reach people is by finding common ground.

要影響別人，其實 需要的是找到共同點。

It's by separating ideas from identity

重點是要把想法和身分拆開來看，

and being genuinely open to persuasion.

且要真心地開放接受說服。

Debate is a way to organize conversations about how the world is, could, should be.

辯論是一種將對話整理起來的方式，

關於「世界是怎樣的／世界能變成 怎樣／應該是怎樣的」的對話。

Or to put it another way,

換一種方式來說明， 我很樂意將我的指南提供給各位，

I would love to offer you my experience-backed,

它有經驗支持，且經過測試，

evidence-tested guide to talking to your cousin about politics

能幫助你在下次的家庭聚餐上 和你的表親談政治；

at your next family dinner;

reorganizing the way in which your team debates new proposals;

知道你的團隊要改用什麼方式 來針對新的提案做辯論；

thinking about how we change our public conversation.

並思考我們要如何改變 我們的公眾對話。

And so, as an entry point into that:

所以，切入點是：

debate requires that we engage with the conflicting idea,

辯論需要我們去和衝突的想法交手，

directly, respectfully, face to face.

直接面對面交手，且不失尊重。

The foundation of debate is rebuttal.

辯論的基礎是反駁。

The idea that you make a claim and I provide a response,

它的想法是，你提出一項主張， 我提供一個回應，

and you respond to my response.

你再針對我的回應來回應。

Without rebuttal, it's not debate, it's just pontificating.

沒有反駁就不是辯論， 只是自以為是地說話。

And I had originally imagined that the most successful debaters,

原本，在我的想像中， 最成功的辯論者，

really excellent persuaders,

真正出色的說服者，

must be great at going to extremes.

一定是很擅長做到極端。

They must have some magical ability to make the polarizing palatable.

他們一定有某種神奇能力

讓兩極化變得可接受。

And it took me a really long time to figure out

我花了好長的時間，才了解到，

that the opposite is actually true.

事實完全相反。

People who disagree the most productively start by finding common ground,

用最有生產力的方式表示不同意的人，

一開始其實是先找共同點，

no matter how narrow it is.

不論共同點有多難找。

They identify the thing that we can all agree on

他們會找出大家都能認同的點，

and go from there:

從那裡開始：

the right to an education, equality between all people,

受教育的權利、所有人的平等、

the importance of safer communities.

更安全的社區有多重要。

What they're doing is inviting us

他們在做的，是邀請我們 進入心理學家所謂的共同現實。

into what psychologists call shared reality.

And shared reality is the antidote to alternative facts.

共同現實是替代事實的解藥。

The conflict, of course, is still there.

當然，衝突仍然存在。

That's why it's a debate.

那就是辯論之所以稱為辯論的原因。

Shared reality just gives us a platform to start to talk about it.

共同現實只是給我們一個平台， 讓我們能夠開始談事情。

But the trick of debate is that you end up doing it directly,

但辯論的竅門是，你最後會直接

和對方坐下來面對面進行。

face to face, across the table.

And research backs up that that really matters.

研究支持這一點， 證明它真的很重要。

Professor Juliana Schroeder at UC Berkeley and her colleagues

加州大學柏克萊分校的 茱莉安娜施羅德教授和她的同事

have research that suggests that listening to someone's voice

所做的研究顯示，當一個人 在說明有爭議性的論點時，

as they make a controversial argument

傾聽他的表述，才是真正的有人性。

is literally humanizing.

It makes it easier to engage with what that person has to say.

才會更容易去應對他所說的話。

So, step away from the keyboards, start conversing.

所以，離開鍵盤，開始對話。

And if we are to expand that notion a little bit,

如果我們把那個概念 再擴大一點點，

nothing is stopping us from pressing pause on a parade of keynote speeches,

沒有什麼能阻止我們按下暫停鍵，

停下一連串的專題演說、

the sequence of very polite panel discussions,

一連串非常有禮貌的小組討論，

and replacing some of that with a structured debate.

並將其中某些置換成 有結構性的辯論。

All of our conferences could have, at their centerpiece,

我們所有的會議都可以在核心上

a debate over the biggest, most controversial ideas in the field.

針對該領域中最大、 最有爭議性的想法進行辯論。

Each of our weekly team meetings could devote 10 minutes

我們每週的團隊會議 可以騰出十分鐘

to a debate about a proposal to change the way in which that team works.

針對一項改變團隊 工作方式的提案進行辯論。

And as innovative ideas go, this one is both easy and free.

就創新想法來說， 這個創新想法既容易又免費。

You could start tomorrow.

你明天就可以開始。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And once we're inside this shared reality,

一旦我們進入了共同現實，

debate also requires that we separate ideas

辯論也需要我們將想法

和討論想法的人的身分區別開來。

from the identity of the person discussing them.

So in formal debate, nothing is a topic unless it is controversial:

在正式辯論中， 有爭議性的主題才算是主題：

that we should raise the voting age, outlaw gambling.

我們應該要提高投票的年齡、 讓賭博不合法。

But the debaters don't choose their sides.

但辯論者不能選擇要站在哪一邊。

So that's why it makes no sense to do what 10-year-old Julia did.

那就是為什麼把我十歲時的做法 搬過來是不合理的。

Attacking the identity of the person making the argument is irrelevant,

攻擊論點闡述者的身分是不恰當的，

because they didn't choose it.

因為那不是他們能選擇的。

Your only winning strategy

你唯一的致勝策略

is to engage with the best, clearest, least personal version of the idea.

就是去採用最好、

最清楚、最不個人化的想法。

And it might sound impossible or naive to imagine

你能把那種觀念帶到 高中會堂以外的地方

that you could ever take that notion outside the high school auditorium.

聽起來似乎不可能， 或是這樣的想像太天真了。

We spend so much time dismissing ideas as democrat or republican.

我們像民主黨或共和黨那樣，

花太多時間在駁斥對方的想法。

Rejecting proposals because they came from headquarters,

拒絕提案的原因 是因為它來自總部，

or from a region that we think is not like ours.

或是來自我們認為 跟我們不一樣的區域。

But it is possible.

但它（將觀點和身分區分開） 是有可能的。

When I work with teams, trying to come up with the next big idea,

當我和團隊合作時， 試圖想出下一個偉大的點子，

or solve a really complex problem,

或是解決一個非常困難的問題，

I start by asking them, all of them, to submit ideas anonymously.

我一開始會要求他們所有人 暱名將想法提交出來。

So by way of illustration, two years ago,

舉個例子，兩年前，

I was working with multiple government agencies

我和好幾個政府機關合作，

to generate new solutions to reduce long-term unemployment.

產生出新的解決方案， 來減低長期失業率。

Which is one of those really wicked,

這是那些非常惡劣、棘手，

sticky, well-studied public policy problems.

且有相當多研究的公共政策問題。

So exactly as I described, right at the beginning,

所以，正如同我一開頭所描述的，

potential solutions were captured from everywhere.

可能的解決方案俯拾皆是。

We aggregated them,

我們將它們整合，

each of them was produced on an identical template.

每個解決方案都基於 一個同樣的樣板。

At this point, they all look the same, they have no separate identity.

此時，它們看起來都一樣， 沒有不同的身分。

And then, of course, they are discussed, picked over,

接著，當然，它們會被討論、

挑選、精製、最後定案。

refined, finalized.

And at the end of that process, more than 20 of those new ideas

在過程的最後， 那些新想法當中有超過二十個

are presented to the cabinet ministers responsible for consideration.

被拿來簡報給負責 做考量的內閣部長聽。

But more than half of those, the originator of those ideas

但那些想法的始發者，有超過一半

was someone who might have a hard time getting the ear of a policy advisor.

都是原本可能很難讓政策顧問 聽他們說話的人。

Or who, because of their identity,

因為他們的身分的關係，

might not be taken entirely seriously if they did.

他們的觀點不會被認真看待。

Folks who answer the phones, assistants who manage calendars,

接起電話的人，管理日曆的助理，

representatives from agencies who weren't always trusted.

來自機構的代表， 不見得都會被信任。

Imagine if our news media did the same thing.

想像一下，如果我們的 新聞媒體也這麼做。

You can kind of see it now -- a weekly cable news segment

你們現在其實就可以看到—— 每週有線電視新聞片段，

with a big policy proposal on the table

把很了不起的政策提案端上桌，

that doesn't call it liberal or conservative.

但不說它是自由派或保守派。

Or a series of op-eds for and against a big idea

或是支持或反對一個偉大 想法的一系列專欄版，

that don't tell you where the writers worked.

並不會告訴你作者在哪裡工作。

Our public conversations, even our private disagreements,

我們的公眾對談， 甚至我們的私人爭論，

can be transformed by debating ideas, rather than discussing identity.

都能透過想法辯論來轉變，

而不是透過討論身分。

And then, the thing that debate allows us to do as human beings

接著，辯論讓我們人類 能夠去做一件事，

is open ourselves, really open ourselves up

就是開誠布公，真正開誠布公，

to the possibility that we might be wrong.

承認自己有可能是錯的。

The humility of uncertainty.

這是不確定性的謙卑。

One of the reasons it is so hard to disagree productively

要做到有生產力地表示不同意 十分困難的原因之一，

is because we become attached to our ideas.

是因為我們變得 太依附我們的想法。

We start to believe that we own them and that by extension, they own us.

我們開始相信， 我們擁有那些想法，

延伸的意思就是， 那些想法擁有我們。

But eventually, if you debate long enough,

但，最終，如果 你辯論得夠久，你會換邊站，

you will switch sides,

you'll argue for and against the expansion of the welfare state.

你會支持和反對福利國家的擴張。

For and against compulsory voting.

支持和反對強制投票。

And that exercise flips a kind of cognitive switch.

那種練習會觸發一種認知開關。

The suspicions that you hold

有些人會支持你所不相信的信仰，

about people who espouse beliefs that you don't have, starts to evaporate.

而你對於這些人的懷疑會開始蒸發。

Because you can imagine yourself stepping into those shoes.

因為你可以想像 把你自己放到他們的立場。

And as you're stepping into those,

當你把自己放到那些立場，

you're embracing the humility of uncertainty.

你就是在擁抱不確定性的謙卑。

The possibility of being wrong.

承認了自己有可能是錯的。

And it's that exact humility that makes us better decision-makers.

正是那種謙卑，讓我們 能成為更好的決策者。

Neuroscientist and psychologist Mark Leary at Duke University and his colleagues

杜克大學的神經科學家 兼心理學家馬克利里和他的同事

have found that people who are able to practice --

發現：若人們能夠去練習—— 這是一項技巧——

and it is a skill --

what those researchers call intellectual humility

研究者所謂的「智謙」，

are more capable of evaluating a broad range of evidence,

他們就比較有能力 去評估廣泛的證據，

are more objective when they do so,

在這麼做的時候也會比較客觀，

and become less defensive when confronted with conflicting evidence.

且在面對衝突的證據時， 也會比較不那麼有防禦性。

All attributes that we want in our bosses,

我們都希望這些特質 會出現在我們的老闆、

colleagues, discussion partners, decision-makers,

同事、討論夥伴、決策者的身上，

all virtues that we would like to claim for ourselves.

我們也希望我們自己 能有這些美德。

And so, as we're embracing that humility of uncertainty,

所以，當我們擁抱 不確定性的謙卑時，

we should be asking each other, all of us, a question.

我們應該要問問彼此， 我們所有人，一個問題。

Our debate moderators, our news anchors should be asking it

我們的辯論仲裁者，我們的 新聞主播都應該要問這個問題，

of our elective representatives and candidates for office, too.

我們選出的公職代表 和候選人也應該要問。

"What is it that you have changed your mind about and why?"

「你改變了你對什麼的 看法？為什麼？」

"What uncertainty are you humble about?"

「你對於什麼樣的 不確定性是謙卑的？」

And this by the way, isn't some fantasy

順便一提，這並不是公務

about how public life and public conversations could work.

和公眾對談要怎樣才好的空想。

It has precedent.

這是有先例的。

So, in 1969,

1969 年，

beloved American children's television presenter Mister Rogers

很受喜愛的兒童電視節目主持人 佛瑞德羅傑斯坐在陪審團前，

sits impaneled

面對美國國會溝通小組委員會，

before the United States congressional subcommittee on communications,

chaired by the seemingly very curmudgeonly John Pastore.

主席是看似非常不和悅的 約翰帕斯托雷。

And Mister Rogers is there to make a kind of classic debate case,

羅傑斯去那裡是要進行 一件經典的辯論案，

a really bold proposal:

一個非常大膽的提議：

an increase in federal funding for public broadcasting.

增加聯邦對於 公共廣播提撥的資金。

And at the outset,

一開始，委員會的執行紀律者 帕斯托雷不吃這一套。

committee disciplinarian Senator Pastore is not having it.

This is about to end really poorly for Mister Rogers.

對羅傑斯來說，這個案件 就要以很糟糕的方式結案。

But patiently, very reasonably, Mister Rogers makes the case

但，羅傑斯很有耐心， 非常理性地提出論據，

why good quality children's broadcasting,

說明為什麼高品質的兒童廣播，

the kinds of television programs that talk about the drama that arises

即內容是關於在平凡家庭中

in the most ordinary of families,

發生之悲劇事件的電視節目，

matters to all of us.

對我們所有人都很重要。

Even while it costs us.

雖然我們得付出成本。

He invites us into a shared reality.

他邀請我們進入一個共同現實。

And on the other side of that table,

在那張桌子的另一端，

Senator Pastore listens, engages and opens his mind.

帕斯托雷傾聽著，

盡力理解，而打開了心胸。

Out loud, in public, on the record.

公開在會留下記錄的情況下，

And Senator Pastore says to Mister Rogers,

帕斯托雷大聲對羅傑斯說出來：

"You know, I'm supposed to be a pretty tough guy,

「你知道嗎，我應該 要是個很強硬的人，

and this is the first time I've had goosebumps in two days."

這是我兩天以來 頭一回起雞皮疙瘩。」

And then, later, "It looks like you just earned the 20 million dollars."

接著，後來他又說：「看來 你剛剛賺到了兩千萬美金。」

We need many more Mister Rogers.

我們需要更多更多的羅傑斯。

People with the technical skills of debate and persuasion.

有辯論和說服技巧的人。

But on the other side of that table,

但在那張桌子的另一端，

we need many, many, many more Senator Pastores.

我們需要很多很多 很多很多帕斯托雷。

And the magic of debate is that it lets you, it empowers you

而辯論的魔力就在於，它讓你能夠

to be both Mister Rogers and Senator Pastore simultaneously.

同時成為羅傑斯以及帕斯托雷。

When I work with those same teams that we talked about before,

當我和我們先前談的 那些團隊合作時，

I ask them at the outset to pre-commit to the possibility of being wrong.

我請他們在一開始就預先 承認他們有可能是錯的。

To explain to me and to each other what it would take to change their minds.

向我以及向彼此解釋， 什麼才能讓他們改變心意。

And that's all about the attitude, not the exercise.

重點在於態度，而非實踐。

Once you start thinking about what it would take to change your mind,

一旦你開始思考什麼 才會讓你改變心意，

you start to wonder why you were quite so sure in the first place.

你就會開始納悶為什麼 你一開始會如此武斷。

There is so much that the practice of debate

進行辯論能夠教導我們好多知識，

has to offer us for how to disagree productively.

讓我們學到如何用 有生產力的方式來表示不同意。

And we should bring it to our workplaces,

我們應該把它帶到 我們的工作場所、

our conferences, our city council meetings.

我們的討論會、 我們的市議會會議中。

And the principles of debate can transform the way that we talk to one another,

辯論的原則能夠轉變 我們和彼此說話的方式，

to empower us to stop talking and to start listening.

讓我們能夠停止講話，開始傾聽。

To stop dismissing and to start persuading.

不再直接拒絕 其他想法，開始說服。

To stop shutting down and to start opening our minds.

不再關上門， 開始打開我們的心胸。

Thank you so much.

非常感謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）