演講MP3+雙語文稿:如何有效地達(dá)成共識(shí)并找到共同點(diǎn)

00:00

00:00

MP3下載

https://online2.tingclass.net/lesson/shi0529/10000/10387/tedyp86.mp3

https://image.tingclass.net/statics/js/2012

聽力課堂TED音頻欄目主要包括TED演講的音頻MP3及中英雙語文稿，供各位英語愛好者學(xué)習(xí)使用。本文主要內(nèi)容為演講MP3+雙語文稿:如何有效地達(dá)成共識(shí)并找到共同點(diǎn)，希望你會(huì)喜歡！

【演講人及介紹】Julia Dhar

商業(yè)策略師，冠軍辯論者，波士頓咨詢集團(tuán)（BostonConsulting Group）行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家朱莉婭?達(dá)爾（JuliaDhar）曾經(jīng)擔(dān)任過多年辯論教練，帶隊(duì)拿過世界冠軍。

【演講主題】如何有效地達(dá)成共識(shí)并找到共同點(diǎn)

【演講文稿-中英文】

翻譯者 Xiaobao Gan 校對(duì) psjmz mz

00:12

Some days, it feels like the only thing wecan agree on is that we can't agree on anything. Public discourse is broken.And we feel that everywhere -- panelists on TV are screaming at each other, wego online to find community and connection, and we end up leaving feeling angryand alienated. In everyday life, probably because everyone else is yelling, weare so scared to get into an argument that we're willing not to engage at all.Contempt has replaced conversation.

有時(shí)候，我感覺我們唯一能達(dá)成一致的事，就是無法在任何事上達(dá)成一致。公共討論已經(jīng)一團(tuán)糟了。我們會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)這樣的場(chǎng)景無處不在——電視上的辯手們互相大喊大叫，我們上網(wǎng)尋找（與自己立場(chǎng)相同的）社區(qū)，試圖與他人建立聯(lián)系，卻常常在憤怒和孤立感中下線。在日常生活中，可能因?yàn)閯e人都在大喊大叫，我們變得特別害怕去辯論，一點(diǎn)也不想?yún)⑴c其中。蔑視代替了交流。

00:49

My mission in life is to help us disagreeproductively. To find ways to bring truth to light, to bring new ideas to life.I think -- I hope -- that there is a model for structured disagreement that'skind of mutually respectful and assumes a genuine desire to persuade and bepersuaded. And to uncover it, let me take you back a little bit.

我的人生使命是幫助大家有效地提出不同意見。找到揭露真相的辦法，給生活提供新的見解。我認(rèn)為——或者說我希望——會(huì)有一個(gè)結(jié)構(gòu)清晰的爭(zhēng)論模式，那種相互尊重，帶有說服或被說服愿望的真誠立場(chǎng)。為了說明白這點(diǎn)，讓我?guī)銈冏匪菀幌逻^去。

01:16

So, when I was 10 years old, I lovedarguing. This, like, tantalizing possibility that you could convince someone ofyour point of view, just with the power of your words. And perhapsunsurprisingly, my parents and teachers loved this somewhat less.

我10歲時(shí)，特別愛與人爭(zhēng)論。對(duì)我來說，這是一種誘人的可能性，僅憑語言的力量，你就能說服別人接受你的觀點(diǎn)。也許是意料之中，我的父母和老師們都不怎么喜歡爭(zhēng)論。

01:35

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

01:36

And in much the same way as they decidedthat four-year-old Julia might benefit from gymnastics to burn off some energy,they decided that I might benefit from joining a debate team. That is, kind of,go somewhere to argue where they were not.

就跟他們覺得四歲的朱莉亞通過體操燃燒一些能量有好處一樣，他們覺得我加入辯論隊(duì)可能也有好處。意思就是，到他們不在的地方爭(zhēng)論去吧。

01:49

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

01:51

For the uninitiated, the premises of formaldebate are really straightforward: there's a big idea on the table -- that wesupport civil disobedience, that we favor free trade -- and one group of peoplewho speaks in favor of that idea, and one against. My first debate in thecavernous auditorium of Canberra Girls Grammar School was kind of a bundle ofall of the worst mistakes that you see on cable news. It felt easier to me toattack the person making the argument rather than the substance of the ideasthemselves. When that same person challenged my ideas, it felt terrible, I felthumiliated and ashamed. And it felt to me like the sophisticated response tothat was to be as extreme as possible. And despite this very shaky entry intothe world of debate, I loved it. I saw the possibility, and over many yearsworked really hard at it, became really skilled at the technical craft ofdebate. I went on to win the World Schools Debating Championships three times.I know, you're just finding out that this is a thing.

對(duì)于門外漢來說，一場(chǎng)正式辯論的前提非常直觀：臺(tái)面上有個(gè)大的議題——比如我們支持非暴力反抗活動(dòng)，我們青睞自由貿(mào)易——有一組人支持這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)，另一撥人則反對(duì)。我的第一次辯論是在堪培拉女子文法學(xué)校的圓形禮堂里進(jìn)行的，那次辯論我犯了你們能在有線電視新聞上看到的各種糟糕錯(cuò)誤。我當(dāng)時(shí)覺得攻擊持有論點(diǎn)的人比攻擊論點(diǎn)的本質(zhì)要簡(jiǎn)單得多。當(dāng)同一個(gè)人再次挑戰(zhàn)我的觀點(diǎn)時(shí)，那種感覺特別糟糕，我感到被羞辱了，簡(jiǎn)直無地自容。它讓我感覺到最精妙的反駁方式是盡可能的極端。盡管我硬著頭皮走進(jìn)了辯論的世界，卻開始入迷了。我看到了那種可能性，我努力了很多年，掌握了嫻熟的辯論技巧。我贏得了三次世界校園辯論賽的冠軍。我看得出來，你們壓根兒不知道還有這么個(gè)比賽。

03:00

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

03:04

But it wasn't until I started coachingdebaters, persuaders who are really at the top of their game, that I actuallygot it. The way that you reach people is by finding common ground. It's byseparating ideas from identity and being genuinely open to persuasion. Debateis a way to organize conversations about how the world is, could, should be. Orto put it another way, I would love to offer you my experience-backed,evidence-tested guide to talking to your cousin about politics at your nextfamily dinner; reorganizing the way in which your team debates new proposals;thinking about how we change our public conversation.

但直到我開始培訓(xùn)那些在他們領(lǐng)域中具備頂尖實(shí)力的辯手和說服者時(shí)，我才真正認(rèn)識(shí)到，接觸他人的方式是尋找共同立場(chǎng)。這是通過區(qū)別對(duì)待觀點(diǎn)和身份，并真誠開放接受說服來實(shí)現(xiàn)的。通過辯論的方式，可以組織世界是什么，可能是什么，應(yīng)該是什么的對(duì)話?；蛘邠Q一種方法說，我很樂意分享我的親身經(jīng)驗(yàn)，經(jīng)過實(shí)踐檢驗(yàn)的指導(dǎo)方案，來教你在下一次的家庭晚宴中和你的表兄妹談?wù)務(wù)?；重新組織你們團(tuán)隊(duì)討論新提案的方式；想想該如何改變我們的公共交流方式。

03:50

And so, as an entry point into that: debaterequires that we engage with the conflicting idea, directly, respectfully, faceto face. The foundation of debate is rebuttal. The idea that you make a claimand I provide a response, and you respond to my response. Without rebuttal,it's not debate, it's just pontificating. And I had originally imagined thatthe most successful debaters, really excellent persuaders, must be great atgoing to extremes. They must have some magical ability to make the polarizingpalatable. And it took me a really long time to figure out that the opposite isactually true. People who disagree the most productively start by findingcommon ground, no matter how narrow it is. They identify the thing that we canall agree on and go from there: the right to an education, equality between allpeople, the importance of safer communities. What they're doing is inviting usinto what psychologists call shared reality. And shared reality is the antidoteto alternative facts.

那么，我們先要找到一個(gè)切入點(diǎn)：辯論要求我們直截了當(dāng)而不失禮貌，面對(duì)面地直面相互沖突的觀點(diǎn)。辯論的基礎(chǔ)是反駁。就是你發(fā)表論點(diǎn)然后我回復(fù)，然后你再對(duì)我的回復(fù)作出應(yīng)對(duì)。如果沒有反駁，那不叫辯論，那只能叫自說自話。我一開始曾想象過那些最成功的辯手們，最出色的說客們，都一定特別擅長走向極端。他們一定有某種令極端觀點(diǎn)變得可以接受的神奇能力。我花了很長的時(shí)間才想通，事實(shí)其實(shí)恰恰相反。最富有成效地提出異議的人，通常都是從尋找共同立場(chǎng)開始的，無論共同立場(chǎng)是多么的小。他們首先找出來我們都認(rèn)同的事情，然后以此為出發(fā)點(diǎn)：受教育的權(quán)利，全人類的平等，一個(gè)更安全社區(qū)的重要性。他們正在我們帶到如心理學(xué)家所說的“共享現(xiàn)實(shí)”中去。而共享現(xiàn)實(shí)正是另類事實(shí)的解藥。

05:10

The conflict, of course, is still there.That's why it's a debate. Shared reality just gives us a platform to start totalk about it. But the trick of debate is that you end up doing it directly,face to face, across the table. And research backs up that that really matters.Professor Juliana Schroeder at UC Berkeley and her colleagues have researchthat suggests that listening to someone's voice as they make a controversialargument is literally humanizing. It makes it easier to engage with what thatperson has to say.

當(dāng)然，沖突仍然存在。所以它才叫做辯論。共享現(xiàn)實(shí)給了我們一個(gè)談?wù)撍钠脚_(tái)。但辯論的訣竅在于你最終得通過直接討論，面對(duì)面，在臺(tái)面上來實(shí)現(xiàn)。研究發(fā)現(xiàn)也證明這點(diǎn)非常關(guān)鍵。加州大學(xué)伯克利分校的教授朱麗安娜·施羅德和同事的研究表明，在人們提出有爭(zhēng)議的觀點(diǎn)時(shí)，傾聽他們的聲音是人性化的過程。這會(huì)讓你更容易理解對(duì)方要說的話。

05:47

So, step away from the keyboards, startconversing. And if we are to expand that notion a little bit, nothing isstopping us from pressing pause on a parade of keynote speeches, the sequenceof very polite panel discussions, and replacing some of that with a structureddebate. All of our conferences could have, at their centerpiece, a debate overthe biggest, most controversial ideas in the field. Each of our weekly teammeetings could devote 10 minutes to a debate about a proposal to change the wayin which that team works. And as innovative ideas go, this one is both easy andfree. You could start tomorrow.

所以，現(xiàn)在請(qǐng)遠(yuǎn)離鍵盤，開始和別人交流。如果我們把這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)擴(kuò)展開來，沒什么能阻止我們?cè)谝幌盗兄黝}演講中，在有禮貌的小組討論中按下暫停鍵，并用一場(chǎng)結(jié)構(gòu)分明的辯論來替代它們。我們所有的會(huì)議都可以有意識(shí)地對(duì)該領(lǐng)域中最大、最具爭(zhēng)議的觀點(diǎn)展開辯論。我們每周的小組會(huì)議都可以拿出十分鐘來辯論一個(gè)改變團(tuán)隊(duì)運(yùn)作方式的提議。隨著創(chuàng)新的點(diǎn)子不斷涌現(xiàn)，這種方法不僅方便，還不費(fèi)錢，你甚至可以明天起就這么干。

06:33

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

06:34

And once we're inside this shared reality,debate also requires that we separate ideas from the identity of the persondiscussing them. So in formal debate, nothing is a topic unless it iscontroversial: that we should raise the voting age, outlaw gambling. But thedebaters don't choose their sides. So that's why it makes no sense to do what10-year-old Julia did. Attacking the identity of the person making the argumentis irrelevant, because they didn't choose it. Your only winning strategy is toengage with the best, clearest, least personal version of the idea.

一旦我們進(jìn)入了共享現(xiàn)實(shí)的層面，辯論也要求我們將觀點(diǎn)從提出觀點(diǎn)的人的身份中分離出來。所以在一場(chǎng)正式的辯論中，只有有爭(zhēng)議性的東西才能成為話題：比如我們應(yīng)該提升選民年齡，禁止非法賭博。但是辯手們并不選擇自己的立場(chǎng)。這就是為什么那個(gè)10歲的朱莉亞做的事情毫無意義。攻擊參與爭(zhēng)論的人的身份和辯論并不相干，因?yàn)樗麄儫o權(quán)選擇自己的立場(chǎng)。你唯一獲勝的策略就是去和最好，最清晰，最客觀的觀點(diǎn)直接交鋒。

07:20

And it might sound impossible or naive toimagine that you could ever take that notion outside the high schoolauditorium. We spend so much time dismissing ideas as democrat or republican.Rejecting proposals because they came from headquarters, or from a region thatwe think is not like ours. But it is possible. When I work with teams, tryingto come up with the next big idea, or solve a really complex problem, I startby asking them, all of them, to submit ideas anonymously.

這聽起來可能有點(diǎn)不現(xiàn)實(shí)，或者說有點(diǎn)幼稚，去想象你能把這種想法帶出高中禮堂。我們花了太多時(shí)間來駁斥民主黨或共和黨人的觀點(diǎn)。拒絕提議只是因?yàn)檫@是來自總部，或是來自一個(gè)我們認(rèn)為跟我們不同地方。但這是可能的。當(dāng)我和團(tuán)隊(duì)一起工作，要想出一個(gè)什么新點(diǎn)子，或是解決一個(gè)極其復(fù)雜的問題時(shí)，我會(huì)讓他們所有人匿名提交觀點(diǎn)。

07:57

So by way of illustration, two years ago, Iwas working with multiple government agencies to generate new solutions toreduce long-term unemployment. Which is one of those really wicked, sticky,well-studied public policy problems. So exactly as I described, right at thebeginning, potential solutions were captured from everywhere. We aggregated them,each of them was produced on an identical template. At this point, they alllook the same, they have no separate identity. And then, of course, they arediscussed, picked over, refined, finalized. And at the end of that process,more than 20 of those new ideas are presented to the cabinet ministersresponsible for consideration. But more than half of those, the originator ofthose ideas was someone who might have a hard time getting the ear of a policyadvisor. Or who, because of their identity, might not be taken entirelyseriously if they did. Folks who answer the phones, assistants who managecalendars, representatives from agencies who weren't always trusted.

例如，兩年前，我和多個(gè)政府部門一起在考慮解決長期失業(yè)問題的新的方案。這也是極其難纏，棘手，以及早已經(jīng)被研究透了的公共政策問題之一。和我之前說的一樣，在開始的時(shí)候，可能的解決方案都是從各處搜集來的。我們把它們收集到一起，每一個(gè)方案都按照相同的模版呈現(xiàn)。在這一點(diǎn)上，它們看起來都是一樣的，沒什么明顯的不同。當(dāng)然，隨后會(huì)它們被挑出來討論，提煉，最終審定。在這個(gè)過程的末尾，二十多個(gè)新的點(diǎn)子都呈送到了負(fù)責(zé)決策的內(nèi)閣大臣們面前。但其中超過半數(shù)的點(diǎn)子，它們的創(chuàng)作者曾經(jīng)都是在政策顧問面前連話都說不上的人?；蛘咭恍┯捎谏矸荼拔?，其觀點(diǎn)從來沒有被當(dāng)作一回事的人。那些接電話的職員，管理日程表的助理，來自不總是被信任的機(jī)構(gòu)的代表。

09:07

Imagine if our news media did the samething. You can kind of see it now -- a weekly cable news segment with a bigpolicy proposal on the table that doesn't call it liberal or conservative. Or aseries of op-eds for and against a big idea that don't tell you where thewriters worked. Our public conversations, even our private disagreements, canbe transformed by debating ideas, rather than discussing identity. And then,the thing that debate allows us to do as human beings is open ourselves, reallyopen ourselves up to the possibility that we might be wrong. The humility ofuncertainty.

想想如果我們的新聞媒體干過的同樣事情會(huì)如何。那場(chǎng)景幾乎歷歷在目——本周的有線電視新聞時(shí)段有一份重要的政策提議在臺(tái)面上，也不知道來自自由黨派還是保守黨派?；蛘呤菍?duì)某個(gè)觀點(diǎn)提出一連串支持或反對(duì)的觀點(diǎn)，也不會(huì)告訴你其作者在哪里工作。我們的公眾對(duì)話，甚至是我們的個(gè)人異見，都可以通過辯論觀點(diǎn)來轉(zhuǎn)換，而不是討論身份立場(chǎng)。作為人類，辯論還讓我們能夠真正開放自己的心態(tài)，去接受我們犯了錯(cuò)誤的可能。對(duì)不確定性的謙遜。

09:54

One of the reasons it is so hard todisagree productively is because we become attached to our ideas. We start tobelieve that we own them and that by extension, they own us. But eventually, ifyou debate long enough, you will switch sides, you'll argue for and against theexpansion of the welfare state. For and against compulsory voting. And thatexercise flips a kind of cognitive switch. The suspicions that you hold aboutpeople who espouse beliefs that you don't have, starts to evaporate. Becauseyou can imagine yourself stepping into those shoes. And as you're stepping intothose, you're embracing the humility of uncertainty. The possibility of beingwrong. And it's that exact humility that makes us better decision-makers.

難以有效地進(jìn)行爭(zhēng)執(zhí)的原因之一就是我們常常執(zhí)著于自己的意見。我們開始認(rèn)為我們擁有它們，延伸開去就是，它們擁有我們。但最終，如果你辯論的時(shí)間夠長，你的立場(chǎng)就會(huì)改變，你會(huì)在擴(kuò)大國家福利的爭(zhēng)論中不停變換立場(chǎng)。也會(huì)贊同或反對(duì)強(qiáng)制投票。這種訓(xùn)練會(huì)顛覆你的認(rèn)知轉(zhuǎn)換。你對(duì)那些不同信仰的人所持有的疑慮就會(huì)開始消失。因?yàn)槟阋呀?jīng)可以站在他們的角度思考了。而當(dāng)你站在他們的角度思考時(shí)，你就是在接受不確定性帶來的謙遜，也是在接受犯錯(cuò)的可能性。正是那種謙遜讓我們成為了更好的決策者。

10:48

Neuroscientist and psychologist Mark Learyat Duke University and his colleagues have found that people who are able topractice -- and it is a skill -- what those researchers call intellectualhumility are more capable of evaluating a broad range of evidence, are moreobjective when they do so, and become less defensive when confronted withconflicting evidence. All attributes that we want in our bosses, colleagues,discussion partners, decision-makers, all virtues that we would like to claim forourselves. And so, as we're embracing that humility of uncertainty, we shouldbe asking each other, all of us, a question. Our debate moderators, our newsanchors should be asking it of our elective representatives and candidates foroffice, too. "What is it that you have changed your mind about andwhy?" "What uncertainty are you humble about?" And this by theway, isn't some fantasy about how public life and public conversations couldwork. It has precedent.

杜克大學(xué)的神經(jīng)學(xué)家以及心理學(xué)家馬克 · 里亞利和他的同事 發(fā)現(xiàn)那些能夠?qū)嵺`這些的人—— 這是一種技能—— 也就是研究者稱為大智若愚的人，擁有廣泛評(píng)估不同證據(jù)的能力，他們?cè)谠u(píng)估時(shí)也會(huì)更加客觀，在面對(duì)沖突證據(jù)時(shí)也不會(huì)擺出防御的姿態(tài)。這些正是所有我們希望我們的老板，同事，共同討論的搭檔以及決策者都具有的美德，所有我們想要自己擁有的美德。所以，當(dāng)我們擁抱這種不確定性的謙遜時(shí)，所有人都應(yīng)該彼此問這樣一個(gè)問題。我們辯論節(jié)目的主持，以及新聞主播都應(yīng)該問我們的普選代表以及候選議員，“你改變了什么主意，為什么改變主意？”“你對(duì)什么事情的不確定性保持謙遜？”順便一提，這不是什么關(guān)于公共生活以及公眾對(duì)話如何運(yùn)作的幻想。這是有先例的。

11:57

So, in 1969, beloved American children'stelevision presenter Mister Rogers sits impaneled before the United Statescongressional subcommittee on communications, chaired by the seemingly verycurmudgeonly John Pastore. And Mister Rogers is there to make a kind of classicdebate case, a really bold proposal: an increase in federal funding for publicbroadcasting. And at the outset, committee disciplinarian Senator Pastore isnot having it. This is about to end really poorly for Mister Rogers. Butpatiently, very reasonably, Mister Rogers makes the case why good qualitychildren's broadcasting, the kinds of television programs that talk about thedrama that arises in the most ordinary of families, matters to all of us. Evenwhile it costs us. He invites us into a shared reality.

在1969年，著名的美國兒童電視節(jié)目主持人羅杰斯先生坐在由看起來特別乖戾的約翰· 帕斯托爾主持的美國國會(huì)通信小組委員會(huì)面前。羅杰斯先生在這里要做一個(gè)經(jīng)典辯論，一個(gè)非常大膽的提議：提高公共電視廣播節(jié)目的聯(lián)邦政府撥款。一開始，紀(jì)律委員會(huì)參議員帕斯托爾沒有準(zhǔn)許通過。這都差點(diǎn)就成為羅杰斯先生可憐的結(jié)局了。但憑著耐心，理智，羅杰斯先生解釋了為什么高質(zhì)量的兒童節(jié)目，那些講述出現(xiàn)在多數(shù)普通家庭中的奇聞逸事的電視節(jié)目，對(duì)我們所有人都至關(guān)重要。即便它需要花費(fèi)成本。他把我們帶入到了共享現(xiàn)實(shí)的層面。

12:55

And on the other side of that table,Senator Pastore listens, engages and opens his mind. Out loud, in public, onthe record. And Senator Pastore says to Mister Rogers, "You know, I'msupposed to be a pretty tough guy, and this is the first time I've hadgoosebumps in two days." And then, later, "It looks like you justearned the 20 million dollars." We need many more Mister Rogers. Peoplewith the technical skills of debate and persuasion. But on the other side ofthat table, we need many, many, many more Senator Pastores. And the magic ofdebate is that it lets you, it empowers you to be both Mister Rogers andSenator Pastore simultaneously.

而在辯論的另一方，帕斯托爾參議員在聆聽，并用心去思考。參議員大聲地，公開地，在錄音的情況下，對(duì)羅杰斯先生說：“要知道，我本來是個(gè)相當(dāng)固執(zhí)的人，但這是兩天來我第一次起雞皮疙瘩?！比缓螅终f，”看起來你贏得了兩千萬美元。”我們需要更多像羅杰斯先生一樣的人。需要更多擁有辯論和說服技巧的人。但在辯論桌的另一邊，我們也需要很多，甚至更多像帕斯托爾參議員一樣的人。辯論的魔力在于它能夠讓你，賦予你力量，同時(shí)成為羅杰斯先生和帕斯托爾議員一樣的人。

13:51

When I work with those same teams that wetalked about before, I ask them at the outset to pre-commit to the possibilityof being wrong. To explain to me and to each other what it would take to changetheir minds. And that's all about the attitude, not the exercise. Once youstart thinking about what it would take to change your mind, you start towonder why you were quite so sure in the first place. There is so much that thepractice of debate has to offer us for how to disagree productively. And weshould bring it to our workplaces, our conferences, our city council meetings.And the principles of debate can transform the way that we talk to one another,to empower us to stop talking and to start listening. To stop dismissing and tostart persuading. To stop shutting down and to start opening our minds.

當(dāng)我和那些我們之前說過的團(tuán)隊(duì)一起工作時(shí)，我請(qǐng)求他們用最長遠(yuǎn)的考慮去承認(rèn)出錯(cuò)的可能性。讓他們向我以及其他每一個(gè)人解釋如何能讓他們改變主意。這都是態(tài)度的問題，而非實(shí)踐。一旦你開始思考什么會(huì)讓你改變主意，你就會(huì)開始想為什么你一開始會(huì)如此確信。有很多辯論的實(shí)踐教我們?nèi)绾稳ビ行У貭?zhēng)論。我們應(yīng)該把這些方法帶到工作中，帶到會(huì)議中，以及我們的市參議會(huì)中。辯論的原則能夠改變我們彼此交流的方式，能夠讓我們停止說話，開始聆聽。停止拒絕，開始說服。停止自我封閉，并開始開放自己的思維。

14:48

Thank you so much.

非常感謝大家。

14:50

(Applause)

（掌聲）