生活和工作上，我們經常會遇到各種各樣的問題。
對於我們來說，我們不僅僅要保持自身的特點，更要學會在所有的場合求同存異。
-TED英語演講-
Some days, it feels like the only thing we can agree on
有時候，我感覺我們 唯一能達成一致的事，
is that we can’t agree on anything.
就是無法在任何事上達成一致。
Public discourse is broken.
公共討論已經一團糟了。
And we feel that everywhere --
我們會發現這樣的場景無處不在——
panelists on TV are screaming at each other,
電視上的辯手們互相大喊大叫，
we go online to find community and connection,
我們上網尋找（與自己立場相同的） 社區，試圖與他人建立聯繫，
and we end up leaving feeling angry and alienated.
卻常常在憤怒和孤立感中下線。
In everyday life, probably because everyone else is yelling,
在日常生活中， 可能因為別人都在大喊大叫，
we are so scared to get into an argument
我們變得特別害怕去辯論，
that we’re willing not to engage at all.
一點也不想參與其中。
Contempt has replaced conversation.
蔑視代替了交流。
My mission in life is to help us disagree productively.
我的人生使命是幫助大家 有效地提出不同意見。
To find ways to bring truth to light, to bring new ideas to life.
找到揭露真相的辦法， 給生活提供新的見解。
I think -- I hope --
我認為——或者說我希望——
that there is a model for structured disagreement
會有一個結構清晰的爭論模式，
that’s kind of mutually respectful
那種相互尊重，
and assumes a genuine desire to persuade and be persuaded.
帶有說服或被說服願望的真誠立場。
And to uncover it, let me take you back a little bit.
為了說明白這點， 讓我帶你們追溯一下過去。
So, when I was 10 years old, I loved arguing.
我10歲時，特別愛與人爭論。
This, like, tantalizing possibility
對我來說，這是一種誘人的可能性，
that you could convince someone of your point of view,
僅憑語言的力量，
just with the power of your words.
你就能說服別人接受你的觀點。
And perhaps unsurprisingly,
也許是意料之中，
my parents and teachers loved this somewhat less.
我的父母和老師們 都不怎麼喜歡爭論。
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
And in much the same way as they decided
就跟他們覺得
that four-year-old Julia might benefit from gymnastics to burn off some energy,
四歲的朱莉亞通過體操 燃燒一些能量有好處一樣，
they decided that I might benefit from joining a debate team.
他們覺得我加入 辯論隊可能也有好處。
That is, kind of, go somewhere to argue where they were not.
意思就是，到他們不在的 地方爭論去吧。
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
For the uninitiated,
對於門外漢來說，
the premises of formal debate are really straightforward:
一場正式辯論的前提非常直觀：
there’s a big idea on the table --
檯面上有個大的議題——
that we support civil disobedience, that we favor free trade --
比如我們支持非暴力反抗活動， 我們青睞自由貿易——
and one group of people who speaks in favor of that idea,
有一組人支持這個觀點，
and one against.
另一撥人則反對。
My first debate
我的第一次辯論
in the cavernous auditorium of Canberra Girls Grammar School
是在坎培拉女子文法學校的 圓形禮堂裡進行的，
was kind of a bundle of all of the worst mistakes
那次辯論我犯了 你們能在有線電視新聞上
that you see on cable news.
看到的各種糟糕錯誤。
It felt easier to me to attack the person making the argument
我當時覺得攻擊持有論點的人
rather than the substance of the ideas themselves.
比攻擊論點的本質要簡單得多。
When that same person challenged my ideas,
當同一個人再次挑戰我的觀點時，
it felt terrible, I felt humiliated and ashamed.
那種感覺特別糟糕，我感到 被羞辱了，簡直無地自容。
And it felt to me like the sophisticated response to that
它讓我感覺到最精妙的反駁方式
was to be as extreme as possible.
是儘可能的極端。
And despite this very shaky entry into the world of debate, I loved it.
儘管我硬著頭皮走進了 辯論的世界，卻開始入迷了。
I saw the possibility, and over many years worked really hard at it,
我看到了那種可能性，我努力了很多年，
became really skilled at the technical craft of debate.
掌握了嫻熟的辯論技巧。
I went on to win the World Schools Debating Championships three times.
我贏得了三次世界校園辯論賽的冠軍。
I know, you’re just finding out that this is a thing.
我看得出來，你們壓根兒 不知道還有這麼個比賽。
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
But it wasn’t until I started coaching debaters,
但直到我開始培訓那些
persuaders who are really at the top of their game,
在他們領域中具備頂尖實力的 辯手和說服者時，
that I actually got it.
我才真正認識到，
The way that you reach people is by finding common ground.
接觸他人的方式是尋找共同立場。
It’s by separating ideas from identity
這是通過區別對待觀點和身份，
and being genuinely open to persuasion.
並真誠開放接受說服來實現的。
Debate is a way to organize conversations about how the world is, could, should be.
通過辯論的方式，可以組織世界是什麼， 可能是什麼，應該是什麼的對話。
Or to put it another way,
或者換一種方法說，
I would love to offer you my experience-backed,
我很樂意分享我的親身經驗，
evidence-tested guide to talking to your cousin about politics
經過實踐檢驗的指導方案， 來教你在下一次的家庭晚宴中
at your next family dinner;
和你的表兄妹談談政治；
reorganizing the way in which your team debates new proposals;
重新組織你們團隊討論新提案的方式；
thinking about how we change our public conversation.
想想該如何改變我們的公共交流方式。
And so, as an entry point into that:
那麼，我們先要找到一個切入點：
debate requires that we engage with the conflicting idea,
辯論要求我們直截了當 而不失禮貌，面對面地
directly, respectfully, face to face.
直面相互衝突的觀點。
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,
就是你發表論點然後我回復，
and you respond to my response.
然後你再對我的回覆作出應對。
Without rebuttal, it’s not debate, it’s just pontificating.
如果沒有反駁，那不叫辯論， 那只能叫自說自話。
And I had originally imagined that the most successful debaters,
我一開始曾想像過 那些最成功的辯手們，
really excellent persuaders,
最出色的說客們，
must be great at going to extremes.
都一定特別擅長走向極端。
They must have some magical ability to make the polarizing palatable.
他們一定有某種令極端觀點 變得可以接受的神奇能力。
And it took me a really long time to figure out
我花了很長的時間才想通，
that the opposite is actually true.
事實其實恰恰相反。
People who disagree the most productively start by finding common ground,
最富有成效地提出異議的人， 通常都是從尋找共同立場開始的，
no matter how narrow it is.
無論共同立場是多麼的小。
They identify the thing that we can all agree on
他們首先找出來我們都認同的事情，
and go from there:
然後以此為出發點：
the right to an education, equality between all people,
受教育的權利，全人類的平等，
the importance of safer communities.
一個更安全社區的重要性。
What they’re doing is inviting us
他們正在我們帶到如
into what psychologists call shared reality.
心理學家所說的「共享現實」中去。
And shared reality is the antidote to alternative facts.
而共享現實正是另類事實的解藥。
The conflict, of course, is still there.
當然，衝突仍然存在。
That’s why it’s a debate.
所以它才叫做辯論。
Shared reality just gives us a platform to start to talk about it.
共享現實給了我們一個談論它的平臺。
But the trick of debate is that you end up doing it directly,
但辯論的訣竅在於 你最終得通過直接討論，
face to face, across the table.
面對面，在檯面上來實現。
And research backs up that that really matters.
研究發現也證明這點非常關鍵。
Professor Juliana Schroeder at UC Berkeley and her colleagues
加州大學伯克利分校的教授 朱麗安娜 · 施洛德和同事的
have research that suggests that listening to someone’s voice
研究表明，在人們提出有爭議的觀點時，
as they make a controversial argument
傾聽他們的聲音
is literally humanizing.
是人性化的過程。
It makes it easier to engage with what that person has to say.
這會讓你更容易理解對方要說的話。
So, step away from the keyboards, start conversing.
所以，現在請遠離鍵盤， 開始和別人交流。
And if we are to expand that notion a little bit,
如果我們把這個觀點擴展開來，
nothing is stopping us from pressing pause on a parade of keynote speeches,
沒什麼能阻止我們 在一系列主題演講中，
the sequence of very polite panel discussions,
在有禮貌的小組討論中按下暫停鍵，
and replacing some of that with a structured debate.
並用一場結構分明的 辯論來替代它們。
All of our conferences could have, at their centerpiece,
我們所有的會議都可以有意識地
a debate over the biggest, most controversial ideas in the field.
對該領域中最大、 最具爭議的觀點展開辯論。
Each of our weekly team meetings could devote 10 minutes
我們每周的小組會議 都可以拿出十分鐘
to a debate about a proposal to change the way in which that team works.
來辯論一個改變團隊 運作方式的提議。
And as innovative ideas go, this one is both easy and free.
隨著創新的點子不斷湧現， 這種方法不僅方便，還不費錢，
You could start tomorrow.
你甚至可以明天起就這麼幹。
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
And once we’re inside this shared reality,
一旦我們進入了共享現實的層面，
debate also requires that we separate ideas
辯論也要求我們將觀點
from the identity of the person discussing them.
從提出觀點的人的身份中分離出來。
So in formal debate, nothing is a topic unless it is controversial:
所以在一場正式的辯論中， 只有有爭議性的東西才能成為話題：
that we should raise the voting age, outlaw gambling.
比如我們應該提升選民年齡， 禁止非法賭博。
But the debaters don’t choose their sides.
但是辯手們並不選擇自己的立場。
So that’s why it makes no sense to do what 10-year-old Julia did.
這就是為什麼那個10歲的 朱莉亞做的事情毫無意義。
Attacking the identity of the person making the argument is irrelevant,
攻擊參與爭論的人的身份 和辯論並不相干，
because they didn’t choose it.
因為他們無權選擇自己的立場。
Your only winning strategy
你唯一獲勝的策略
is to engage with the best, clearest, least personal version of the idea.
就是去和最好，最清晰， 最客觀的觀點直接交鋒。
And it might sound impossible or naive to imagine
這聽起來可能有點不現實， 或者說有點幼稚，去想像
that you could ever take that notion outside the high school auditorium.
你能把這種想法帶出高中禮堂。
We spend so much time dismissing ideas as democrat or republican.
我們花了太多時間來駁斥 民主黨或共和黨人的觀點。
Rejecting proposals because they came from headquarters,
拒絕提議只是因為這是來自總部，
or from a region that we think is not like ours.
或是來自一個我們認為 跟我們不同地方。
But it is possible.
但這是可能的。
When I work with teams, trying to come up with the next big idea,
當我和團隊一起工作， 要想出一個什麼新點子，
or solve a really complex problem,
或是解決一個極其複雜的問題時，
I start by asking them, all of them, to submit ideas anonymously.
我會讓他們所有人匿名提交觀點。
So by way of illustration, two years ago,
例如，兩年前，
I was working with multiple government agencies
我和多個政府部門一起在考慮
to generate new solutions to reduce long-term unemployment.
解決長期失業問題的新的方案。
Which is one of those really wicked,
這也是極其難纏，棘手，
sticky, well-studied public policy problems.
以及早已經被研究透了的 公共政策問題之一。
So exactly as I described, right at the beginning,
和我之前說的一樣，在開始的時候，
potential solutions were captured from everywhere.
可能的解決方案 都是從各處搜集來的。
We aggregated them,
我們把它們收集到一起，
each of them was produced on an identical template.
每一個方案都按照相同的模版呈現。
At this point, they all look the same, they have no separate identity.
在這一點上，它們看起來 都是一樣的，沒什麼明顯的不同。
And then, of course, they are discussed, picked over,
當然，隨後會它們被挑出來討論，
refined, finalized.
提煉，最終審定。
And at the end of that process, more than 20 of those new ideas
在這個過程的末尾， 二十多個新的點子
are presented to the cabinet ministers responsible for consideration.
都呈送到了負責決策的 內閣大臣們面前。
But more than half of those, the originator of those ideas
但其中超過半數的點子，它們的創作者
was someone who might have a hard time getting the ear of a policy advisor.
曾經都是在政策顧問面前 連話都說不上的人。
Or who, because of their identity,
或者一些由於身份卑微，
might not be taken entirely seriously if they did.
其觀點從來沒有被當作一回事的人。
Folks who answer the phones, assistants who manage calendars,
那些接電話的職員，管理日程表的助理，
representatives from agencies who weren’t always trusted.
來自不總是被信任的機構的代表。
Imagine if our news media did the same thing.
想想如果我們的新聞媒體 幹過的同樣事情會如何。
You can kind of see it now -- a weekly cable news segment
那場景幾乎歷歷在目—— 本周的有線電視新聞時段
with a big policy proposal on the table
有一份重要的政策提議在檯面上，
that doesn’t call it liberal or conservative.
也不知道來自自由黨派還是保守黨派。
Or a series of op-eds for and against a big idea
或者是對某個觀點提出 一連串支持或反對的觀點，
that don’t tell you where the writers worked.
也不會告訴你其作者在哪裡工作。
Our public conversations, even our private disagreements,
我們的公眾對話， 甚至是我們的個人異見，
can be transformed by debating ideas, rather than discussing identity.
都可以通過辯論觀點來轉換， 而不是討論身份立場。
And then, the thing that debate allows us to do as human beings
作為人類，辯論還讓我們能夠
is open ourselves, really open ourselves up
真正開放自己的心態，
to the possibility that we might be wrong.
去接受我們犯了錯誤的可能。
The humility of uncertainty.
對不確定性的謙遜。
One of the reasons it is so hard to disagree productively
難以有效地進行爭執的原因之一
is because we become attached to our ideas.
就是我們常常執著於自己的意見。
We start to believe that we own them and that by extension, they own us.
我們開始認為我們擁有它們， 延伸開去就是，它們擁有我們。
But eventually, if you debate long enough,
但最終，如果你辯論的時間夠長，
you will switch sides,
你的立場就會改變，
you』ll argue for and against the expansion of the welfare state.
你會在擴大國家福利的 爭論中不停變換立場。
For and against compulsory voting.
也會贊同或反對強制投票。
And that exercise flips a kind of cognitive switch.
這種訓練會顛覆你的認知轉換。
The suspicions that you hold
你對那些
about people who espouse beliefs that you don’t have, starts to evaporate.
不同信仰的人所持有的 疑慮就會開始消失。
Because you can imagine yourself stepping into those shoes.
因為你已經可以 站在他們的角度思考了。
And as you’re stepping into those,
而當你站在他們的角度思考時，
you’re embracing the humility of uncertainty.
你就是在接受不確定性帶來的謙遜，
The possibility of being wrong.
也是在接受犯錯的可能性。
And it’s that exact humility that makes us better decision-makers.
正是那種謙遜讓我們 成為了更好的決策者。
Neuroscientist and psychologist Mark Leary at Duke University and his colleagues
杜克大學的神經學家以及心理學家 馬克 · 裡亞利和他的同事
have found that people who are able to practice --
發現那些能夠實踐這些的人——
and it is a skill --
這是一種技能——
what those researchers call intellectual humility
也就是研究者稱為大智若愚的人，
are more capable of evaluating a broad range of evidence,
擁有廣泛評估不同證據的能力，
are more objective when they do so,
他們在評估時也會更加客觀，
and become less defensive when confronted with conflicting evidence.
在面對衝突證據時 也不會擺出防禦的姿態。
All attributes that we want in our bosses,
這些正是所有我們希望我們的老闆，
colleagues, discussion partners, decision-makers,
同事，共同討論的搭檔 以及決策者都具有的美德，
all virtues that we would like to claim for ourselves.
所有我們想要自己擁有的美德。
And so, as we’re embracing that humility of uncertainty,
所以，當我們擁抱 這種不確定性的謙遜時，
we should be asking each other, all of us, a question.
所有人都應該彼此問這樣一個問題。
Our debate moderators, our news anchors should be asking it
我們辯論節目的主持， 以及新聞主播都應該問
of our elective representatives and candidates for office, too.
我們的普選代表以及候選議員，
What is it that you have changed your mind about and why?
「你改變了什麼主意，為什麼改變主意？」
What uncertainty are you humble about?
「你對什麼事情的不確定性保持謙遜？」
And this by the way, isn’t some fantasy
順便一提，這不是什麼
about how public life and public conversations could work.
關於公共生活以及 公眾對話如何運作的幻想。
It has precedent.
這是有先例的。
So, in 1969,
在1969年，
beloved American children’s television presenter Mister Rogers
著名的美國兒童電視節目 主持人羅傑斯先生
sits impaneled
坐在由看起來
before the United States congressional subcommittee on communications,
特別乖戾的約翰 · 帕斯託爾主持的
chaired by the seemingly very curmudgeonly John Pastore.
美國國會通信小組委員會面前。
And Mister Rogers is there to make a kind of classic debate case,
羅傑斯先生在這裡要做一個經典辯論，
a really bold proposal:
一個非常大膽的提議：
an increase in federal funding for public broadcasting.
提高公共電視廣播節目的 聯邦政府撥款。
And at the outset,
一開始，
committee disciplinarian Senator Pastore is not having it.
紀律委員會參議員 帕斯託爾沒有準許通過。
This is about to end really poorly for Mister Rogers.
這都差點就成為 羅傑斯先生可憐的結局了。
But patiently, very reasonably, Mister Rogers makes the case
但憑著耐心，理智，羅傑斯先生解釋了
why good quality children’s broadcasting,
為什麼高質量的兒童節目，
the kinds of television programs that talk about the drama that arises
那些講述出現在多數普通家庭中的
in the most ordinary of families,
奇聞逸事的電視節目，
matters to all of us.
對我們所有人都至關重要。
Even while it costs us.
即便它需要花費成本。
He invites us into a shared reality.
他把我們帶入到了共享現實的層面。
And on the other side of that table,
而在辯論的另一方，
Senator Pastore listens, engages and opens his mind.
帕斯託爾參議員在聆聽，並用心去思考。
Out loud, in public, on the record.
參議員大聲地，公開地，在錄音的情況下，
And Senator Pastore says to Mister Rogers,
對羅傑斯先生說：
You know, I’m supposed to be a pretty tough guy,
「要知道，我本來是個相當固執的人，
and this is the first time I』ve had goosebumps in two days."
但這是兩天來我第一次起雞皮疙瘩。」
And then, later, "It looks like you just earned the 20 million dollars."
然後，他又說，」看起來你 贏得了兩千萬美元。」
We need many more Mister Rogers.
我們需要更多像羅傑斯先生一樣的人。
People with the technical skills of debate and persuasion.
需要更多擁有辯論和說服技巧的人。
But on the other side of that table,
但在辯論桌的另一邊，
we need many, many, many more Senator Pastores.
我們也需要很多，甚至更多 像帕斯託爾參議員一樣的人。
And the magic of debate is that it lets you, it empowers you
辯論的魔力在於它能夠 讓你，賦予你力量，
to be both Mister Rogers and Senator Pastore simultaneously.
同時成為羅傑斯先生 和帕斯託爾議員一樣的人。
When I work with those same teams that we talked about before,
當我和那些我們之前 說過的團隊一起工作時，
I ask them at the outset to pre-commit to the possibility of being wrong.
我請求他們用最長遠的考慮 去承認出錯的可能性。
To explain to me and to each other what it would take to change their minds.
讓他們向我以及其他每一個人 解釋如何能讓他們改變主意。
And that’s all about the attitude, not the exercise.
這都是態度的問題，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會讓你改變主意，
you start to wonder why you were quite so sure in the first place.
你就會開始想為什麼 你一開始會如此確信。
There is so much that the practice of debate
有很多辯論的實踐
has to offer us for how to disagree productively.
教我們如何去有效地爭論。
And we should bring it to our workplaces,
我們應該把這些方法帶到工作中，
our conferences, our city council meetings.
帶到會議中， 以及我們的市參議會中。
And the principles of debate can transform the way that we talk to one another,
辯論的原則能夠改變 我們彼此交流的方式，
to empower us to stop talking and to start listening.
能夠讓我們停止說話，開始聆聽。
To stop dismissing and to start persuading.
停止拒絕，開始說服。
To stop shutting down and to start opening our minds.
停止自我封閉， 並開始開放自己的思維。
Thank you so much.
非常感謝大家。
Some days, it feels like the only thing we can agree on
有時候，我感覺我們 唯一能達成一致的事，
is that we can’t agree on anything.
就是無法在任何事上達成一致。
Public discourse is broken.
公共討論已經一團糟了。
And we feel that everywhere --
我們會發現這樣的場景無處不在——
panelists on TV are screaming at each other,
電視上的辯手們互相大喊大叫，
we go online to find community and connection,
我們上網尋找（與自己立場相同的） 社區，試圖與他人建立聯繫，
and we end up leaving feeling angry and alienated.
卻常常在憤怒和孤立感中下線。
In everyday life, probably because everyone else is yelling,
在日常生活中， 可能因為別人都在大喊大叫，
we are so scared to get into an argument
我們變得特別害怕去辯論，
that we’re willing not to engage at all.
一點也不想參與其中。
Contempt has replaced conversation.
蔑視代替了交流。
My mission in life is to help us disagree productively.
我的人生使命是幫助大家 有效地提出不同意見。
To find ways to bring truth to light, to bring new ideas to life.
找到揭露真相的辦法， 給生活提供新的見解。
I think -- I hope --
我認為——或者說我希望——
that there is a model for structured disagreement
會有一個結構清晰的爭論模式，
that’s kind of mutually respectful
那種相互尊重，
and assumes a genuine desire to persuade and be persuaded.
帶有說服或被說服願望的真誠立場。
And to uncover it, let me take you back a little bit.
為了說明白這點， 讓我帶你們追溯一下過去。
So, when I was 10 years old, I loved arguing.
我10歲時，特別愛與人爭論。
This, like, tantalizing possibility
對我來說，這是一種誘人的可能性，
that you could convince someone of your point of view,
僅憑語言的力量，
just with the power of your words.
你就能說服別人接受你的觀點。
And perhaps unsurprisingly,
也許是意料之中，
my parents and teachers loved this somewhat less.
我的父母和老師們 都不怎麼喜歡爭論。
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
And in much the same way as they decided
就跟他們覺得
that four-year-old Julia might benefit from gymnastics to burn off some energy,
四歲的朱莉亞通過體操 燃燒一些能量有好處一樣，
they decided that I might benefit from joining a debate team.
他們覺得我加入 辯論隊可能也有好處。
That is, kind of, go somewhere to argue where they were not.
意思就是，到他們不在的 地方爭論去吧。
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
For the uninitiated,
對於門外漢來說，
the premises of formal debate are really straightforward:
一場正式辯論的前提非常直觀：
there’s a big idea on the table --
檯面上有個大的議題——
that we support civil disobedience, that we favor free trade --
比如我們支持非暴力反抗活動， 我們青睞自由貿易——
and one group of people who speaks in favor of that idea,
有一組人支持這個觀點，
and one against.
另一撥人則反對。
My first debate
我的第一次辯論
in the cavernous auditorium of Canberra Girls Grammar School
是在坎培拉女子文法學校的 圓形禮堂裡進行的，
was kind of a bundle of all of the worst mistakes
那次辯論我犯了 你們能在有線電視新聞上
that you see on cable news.
看到的各種糟糕錯誤。
It felt easier to me to attack the person making the argument
我當時覺得攻擊持有論點的人
rather than the substance of the ideas themselves.
比攻擊論點的本質要簡單得多。
When that same person challenged my ideas,
當同一個人再次挑戰我的觀點時，
it felt terrible, I felt humiliated and ashamed.
那種感覺特別糟糕，我感到 被羞辱了，簡直無地自容。
And it felt to me like the sophisticated response to that
它讓我感覺到最精妙的反駁方式
was to be as extreme as possible.
是儘可能的極端。
And despite this very shaky entry into the world of debate, I loved it.
儘管我硬著頭皮走進了 辯論的世界，卻開始入迷了。
I saw the possibility, and over many years worked really hard at it,
我看到了那種可能性，我努力了很多年，
became really skilled at the technical craft of debate.
掌握了嫻熟的辯論技巧。
I went on to win the World Schools Debating Championships three times.
我贏得了三次世界校園辯論賽的冠軍。
I know, you’re just finding out that this is a thing.
我看得出來，你們壓根兒 不知道還有這麼個比賽。
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
But it wasn’t until I started coaching debaters,
但直到我開始培訓那些
persuaders who are really at the top of their game,
在他們領域中具備頂尖實力的 辯手和說服者時，
that I actually got it.
我才真正認識到，
The way that you reach people is by finding common ground.
接觸他人的方式是尋找共同立場。
It’s by separating ideas from identity
這是通過區別對待觀點和身份，
and being genuinely open to persuasion.
並真誠開放接受說服來實現的。
Debate is a way to organize conversations about how the world is, could, should be.
通過辯論的方式，可以組織世界是什麼， 可能是什麼，應該是什麼的對話。
Or to put it another way,
或者換一種方法說，
I would love to offer you my experience-backed,
我很樂意分享我的親身經驗，
evidence-tested guide to talking to your cousin about politics
經過實踐檢驗的指導方案， 來教你在下一次的家庭晚宴中
at your next family dinner;
和你的表兄妹談談政治；
reorganizing the way in which your team debates new proposals;
重新組織你們團隊討論新提案的方式；
thinking about how we change our public conversation.
想想該如何改變我們的公共交流方式。
And so, as an entry point into that:
那麼，我們先要找到一個切入點：
debate requires that we engage with the conflicting idea,
辯論要求我們直截了當 而不失禮貌，面對面地
directly, respectfully, face to face.
直面相互衝突的觀點。
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,
就是你發表論點然後我回復，
and you respond to my response.
然後你再對我的回覆作出應對。
Without rebuttal, it’s not debate, it’s just pontificating.
如果沒有反駁，那不叫辯論， 那只能叫自說自話。
And I had originally imagined that the most successful debaters,
我一開始曾想像過 那些最成功的辯手們，
really excellent persuaders,
最出色的說客們，
must be great at going to extremes.
都一定特別擅長走向極端。
They must have some magical ability to make the polarizing palatable.
他們一定有某種令極端觀點 變得可以接受的神奇能力。
And it took me a really long time to figure out
我花了很長的時間才想通，
that the opposite is actually true.
事實其實恰恰相反。
People who disagree the most productively start by finding common ground,
最富有成效地提出異議的人， 通常都是從尋找共同立場開始的，
no matter how narrow it is.
無論共同立場是多麼的小。
They identify the thing that we can all agree on
他們首先找出來我們都認同的事情，
and go from there:
然後以此為出發點：
the right to an education, equality between all people,
受教育的權利，全人類的平等，
the importance of safer communities.
一個更安全社區的重要性。
What they’re doing is inviting us
他們正在我們帶到如
into what psychologists call shared reality.
心理學家所說的「共享現實」中去。
And shared reality is the antidote to alternative facts.
而共享現實正是另類事實的解藥。
The conflict, of course, is still there.
當然，衝突仍然存在。
That’s why it’s a debate.
所以它才叫做辯論。
Shared reality just gives us a platform to start to talk about it.
共享現實給了我們一個談論它的平臺。
But the trick of debate is that you end up doing it directly,
但辯論的訣竅在於 你最終得通過直接討論，
face to face, across the table.
面對面，在檯面上來實現。
And research backs up that that really matters.
研究發現也證明這點非常關鍵。
Professor Juliana Schroeder at UC Berkeley and her colleagues
加州大學伯克利分校的教授 朱麗安娜 · 施洛德和同事的
have research that suggests that listening to someone’s voice
研究表明，在人們提出有爭議的觀點時，
as they make a controversial argument
傾聽他們的聲音
is literally humanizing.
是人性化的過程。
It makes it easier to engage with what that person has to say.
這會讓你更容易理解對方要說的話。
So, step away from the keyboards, start conversing.
所以，現在請遠離鍵盤， 開始和別人交流。
And if we are to expand that notion a little bit,
如果我們把這個觀點擴展開來，
nothing is stopping us from pressing pause on a parade of keynote speeches,
沒什麼能阻止我們 在一系列主題演講中，
the sequence of very polite panel discussions,
在有禮貌的小組討論中按下暫停鍵，
and replacing some of that with a structured debate.
並用一場結構分明的 辯論來替代它們。
All of our conferences could have, at their centerpiece,
我們所有的會議都可以有意識地
a debate over the biggest, most controversial ideas in the field.
對該領域中最大、 最具爭議的觀點展開辯論。
Each of our weekly team meetings could devote 10 minutes
我們每周的小組會議 都可以拿出十分鐘
to a debate about a proposal to change the way in which that team works.
來辯論一個改變團隊 運作方式的提議。
And as innovative ideas go, this one is both easy and free.
隨著創新的點子不斷湧現， 這種方法不僅方便，還不費錢，
You could start tomorrow.
你甚至可以明天起就這麼幹。
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
And once we’re inside this shared reality,
一旦我們進入了共享現實的層面，
debate also requires that we separate ideas
辯論也要求我們將觀點
from the identity of the person discussing them.
從提出觀點的人的身份中分離出來。
So in formal debate, nothing is a topic unless it is controversial:
所以在一場正式的辯論中， 只有有爭議性的東西才能成為話題：
that we should raise the voting age, outlaw gambling.
比如我們應該提升選民年齡， 禁止非法賭博。
But the debaters don’t choose their sides.
但是辯手們並不選擇自己的立場。
So that’s why it makes no sense to do what 10-year-old Julia did.
這就是為什麼那個10歲的 朱莉亞做的事情毫無意義。
Attacking the identity of the person making the argument is irrelevant,
攻擊參與爭論的人的身份 和辯論並不相干，
because they didn’t choose it.
因為他們無權選擇自己的立場。
Your only winning strategy
你唯一獲勝的策略
is to engage with the best, clearest, least personal version of the idea.
就是去和最好，最清晰， 最客觀的觀點直接交鋒。
And it might sound impossible or naive to imagine
這聽起來可能有點不現實， 或者說有點幼稚，去想像
that you could ever take that notion outside the high school auditorium.
你能把這種想法帶出高中禮堂。
We spend so much time dismissing ideas as democrat or republican.
我們花了太多時間來駁斥 民主黨或共和黨人的觀點。
Rejecting proposals because they came from headquarters,
拒絕提議只是因為這是來自總部，
or from a region that we think is not like ours.
或是來自一個我們認為 跟我們不同地方。
But it is possible.
但這是可能的。
When I work with teams, trying to come up with the next big idea,
當我和團隊一起工作， 要想出一個什麼新點子，
or solve a really complex problem,
或是解決一個極其複雜的問題時，
I start by asking them, all of them, to submit ideas anonymously.
我會讓他們所有人匿名提交觀點。
So by way of illustration, two years ago,
例如，兩年前，
I was working with multiple government agencies
我和多個政府部門一起在考慮
to generate new solutions to reduce long-term unemployment.
解決長期失業問題的新的方案。
Which is one of those really wicked,
這也是極其難纏，棘手，
sticky, well-studied public policy problems.
以及早已經被研究透了的 公共政策問題之一。
So exactly as I described, right at the beginning,
和我之前說的一樣，在開始的時候，
potential solutions were captured from everywhere.
可能的解決方案 都是從各處搜集來的。
We aggregated them,
我們把它們收集到一起，
each of them was produced on an identical template.
每一個方案都按照相同的模版呈現。
At this point, they all look the same, they have no separate identity.
在這一點上，它們看起來 都是一樣的，沒什麼明顯的不同。
And then, of course, they are discussed, picked over,
當然，隨後會它們被挑出來討論，
refined, finalized.
提煉，最終審定。
And at the end of that process, more than 20 of those new ideas
在這個過程的末尾， 二十多個新的點子
are presented to the cabinet ministers responsible for consideration.
都呈送到了負責決策的 內閣大臣們面前。
But more than half of those, the originator of those ideas
但其中超過半數的點子，它們的創作者
was someone who might have a hard time getting the ear of a policy advisor.
曾經都是在政策顧問面前 連話都說不上的人。
Or who, because of their identity,
或者一些由於身份卑微，
might not be taken entirely seriously if they did.
其觀點從來沒有被當作一回事的人。
Folks who answer the phones, assistants who manage calendars,
那些接電話的職員，管理日程表的助理，
representatives from agencies who weren’t always trusted.
來自不總是被信任的機構的代表。
Imagine if our news media did the same thing.
想想如果我們的新聞媒體 幹過的同樣事情會如何。
You can kind of see it now -- a weekly cable news segment
那場景幾乎歷歷在目—— 本周的有線電視新聞時段
with a big policy proposal on the table
有一份重要的政策提議在檯面上，
that doesn’t call it liberal or conservative.
也不知道來自自由黨派還是保守黨派。
Or a series of op-eds for and against a big idea
或者是對某個觀點提出 一連串支持或反對的觀點，
that don’t tell you where the writers worked.
也不會告訴你其作者在哪裡工作。
Our public conversations, even our private disagreements,
我們的公眾對話， 甚至是我們的個人異見，
can be transformed by debating ideas, rather than discussing identity.
都可以通過辯論觀點來轉換， 而不是討論身份立場。
And then, the thing that debate allows us to do as human beings
作為人類，辯論還讓我們能夠
is open ourselves, really open ourselves up
真正開放自己的心態，
to the possibility that we might be wrong.
去接受我們犯了錯誤的可能。
The humility of uncertainty.
對不確定性的謙遜。
One of the reasons it is so hard to disagree productively
難以有效地進行爭執的原因之一
is because we become attached to our ideas.
就是我們常常執著於自己的意見。
We start to believe that we own them and that by extension, they own us.
我們開始認為我們擁有它們， 延伸開去就是，它們擁有我們。
But eventually, if you debate long enough,
但最終，如果你辯論的時間夠長，
you will switch sides,
你的立場就會改變，
you』ll argue for and against the expansion of the welfare state.
你會在擴大國家福利的 爭論中不停變換立場。
For and against compulsory voting.
也會贊同或反對強制投票。
And that exercise flips a kind of cognitive switch.
這種訓練會顛覆你的認知轉換。
The suspicions that you hold
你對那些
about people who espouse beliefs that you don’t have, starts to evaporate.
不同信仰的人所持有的 疑慮就會開始消失。
Because you can imagine yourself stepping into those shoes.
因為你已經可以 站在他們的角度思考了。
And as you’re stepping into those,
而當你站在他們的角度思考時，
you’re embracing the humility of uncertainty.
你就是在接受不確定性帶來的謙遜，
The possibility of being wrong.
也是在接受犯錯的可能性。
And it’s that exact humility that makes us better decision-makers.
正是那種謙遜讓我們 成為了更好的決策者。
Neuroscientist and psychologist Mark Leary at Duke University and his colleagues
杜克大學的神經學家以及心理學家 馬克 · 裡亞利和他的同事
have found that people who are able to practice --
發現那些能夠實踐這些的人——
and it is a skill --
這是一種技能——
what those researchers call intellectual humility
也就是研究者稱為大智若愚的人，
are more capable of evaluating a broad range of evidence,
擁有廣泛評估不同證據的能力，
are more objective when they do so,
他們在評估時也會更加客觀，
and become less defensive when confronted with conflicting evidence.
在面對衝突證據時 也不會擺出防禦的姿態。
All attributes that we want in our bosses,
這些正是所有我們希望我們的老闆，
colleagues, discussion partners, decision-makers,
同事，共同討論的搭檔 以及決策者都具有的美德，
all virtues that we would like to claim for ourselves.
所有我們想要自己擁有的美德。
And so, as we’re embracing that humility of uncertainty,
所以，當我們擁抱 這種不確定性的謙遜時，
we should be asking each other, all of us, a question.
所有人都應該彼此問這樣一個問題。
Our debate moderators, our news anchors should be asking it
我們辯論節目的主持， 以及新聞主播都應該問
of our elective representatives and candidates for office, too.
我們的普選代表以及候選議員，
What is it that you have changed your mind about and why?
「你改變了什麼主意，為什麼改變主意？」
What uncertainty are you humble about?
「你對什麼事情的不確定性保持謙遜？」
And this by the way, isn’t some fantasy
順便一提，這不是什麼
about how public life and public conversations could work.
關於公共生活以及 公眾對話如何運作的幻想。
It has precedent.
這是有先例的。
So, in 1969,
在1969年，
beloved American children’s television presenter Mister Rogers
著名的美國兒童電視節目 主持人羅傑斯先生
sits impaneled
坐在由看起來
before the United States congressional subcommittee on communications,
特別乖戾的約翰 · 帕斯託爾主持的
chaired by the seemingly very curmudgeonly John Pastore.
美國國會通信小組委員會面前。
And Mister Rogers is there to make a kind of classic debate case,
羅傑斯先生在這裡要做一個經典辯論，
a really bold proposal:
一個非常大膽的提議：
an increase in federal funding for public broadcasting.
提高公共電視廣播節目的 聯邦政府撥款。
And at the outset,
一開始，
committee disciplinarian Senator Pastore is not having it.
紀律委員會參議員 帕斯託爾沒有準許通過。
This is about to end really poorly for Mister Rogers.
這都差點就成為 羅傑斯先生可憐的結局了。
But patiently, very reasonably, Mister Rogers makes the case
但憑著耐心，理智，羅傑斯先生解釋了
why good quality children’s broadcasting,
為什麼高質量的兒童節目，
the kinds of television programs that talk about the drama that arises
那些講述出現在多數普通家庭中的
in the most ordinary of families,
奇聞逸事的電視節目，
matters to all of us.
對我們所有人都至關重要。
Even while it costs us.
即便它需要花費成本。
He invites us into a shared reality.
他把我們帶入到了共享現實的層面。
And on the other side of that table,
而在辯論的另一方，
Senator Pastore listens, engages and opens his mind.
帕斯託爾參議員在聆聽，並用心去思考。
Out loud, in public, on the record.
參議員大聲地，公開地，在錄音的情況下，
And Senator Pastore says to Mister Rogers,
對羅傑斯先生說：
You know, I’m supposed to be a pretty tough guy,
「要知道，我本來是個相當固執的人，
and this is the first time I』ve had goosebumps in two days."
但這是兩天來我第一次起雞皮疙瘩。」
And then, later, "It looks like you just earned the 20 million dollars."
然後，他又說，」看起來你 贏得了兩千萬美元。」
We need many more Mister Rogers.
我們需要更多像羅傑斯先生一樣的人。
People with the technical skills of debate and persuasion.
需要更多擁有辯論和說服技巧的人。
But on the other side of that table,
但在辯論桌的另一邊，
we need many, many, many more Senator Pastores.
我們也需要很多，甚至更多 像帕斯託爾參議員一樣的人。
And the magic of debate is that it lets you, it empowers you
辯論的魔力在於它能夠 讓你，賦予你力量，
to be both Mister Rogers and Senator Pastore simultaneously.
同時成為羅傑斯先生 和帕斯託爾議員一樣的人。
When I work with those same teams that we talked about before,
當我和那些我們之前 說過的團隊一起工作時，
I ask them at the outset to pre-commit to the possibility of being wrong.
我請求他們用最長遠的考慮 去承認出錯的可能性。
To explain to me and to each other what it would take to change their minds.
讓他們向我以及其他每一個人 解釋如何能讓他們改變主意。
And that’s all about the attitude, not the exercise.
這都是態度的問題，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會讓你改變主意，
you start to wonder why you were quite so sure in the first place.
你就會開始想為什麼 你一開始會如此確信。
There is so much that the practice of debate
有很多辯論的實踐
has to offer us for how to disagree productively.
教我們如何去有效地爭論。
And we should bring it to our workplaces,
我們應該把這些方法帶到工作中，
our conferences, our city council meetings.
帶到會議中， 以及我們的市參議會中。
And the principles of debate can transform the way that we talk to one another,
辯論的原則能夠改變 我們彼此交流的方式，
to empower us to stop talking and to start listening.
能夠讓我們停止說話，開始聆聽。
To stop dismissing and to start persuading.
停止拒絕，開始說服。
To stop shutting down and to start opening our minds.
停止自我封閉， 並開始開放自己的思維。
Thank you so much.
非常感謝大家。
往期回顧
TED：亞瑟王傳說中是真實的嗎？
TED：公民如何重申對網際網路的權力
TED：壓力與記憶間的驚人聯繫