該怎樣友好地辯論，而不是“一言不合就動(dòng)手”
如果2016年的總統(tǒng)選舉證明了什么的話，那就是有時(shí)候相左的觀點(diǎn)似乎永遠(yuǎn)不可調(diào)和。
In the days since Donald J. Trump has been elected president, thousands of angry people have protested in at least 52 cities across the United States. At a Brooklyn restaurant, a male Trump supporter punched a female supporter of Hillary Clinton’s after they argued about politics, The Daily News reported.
唐納德·J·特朗普(Donald J. Trump)當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)后的這幾天里，在全美至少52個(gè)城市，成千上萬憤怒的民眾舉行了抗議?！睹咳招侣劇?The Daily News)報(bào)道，在布魯克林一家餐廳，特朗普的一名男性支持者在和希拉里·克林頓(Hillary Clinton)的一名女性支持者就政見展開辯論后，對(duì)其大打出手。
And it’s clear that American Thanksgiving gatherings are sure to be interesting affairs this year, as families split between Trump and Clinton supporters try to sit down to dinner without maiming one another — if they show up at all.
隨著分裂成特朗普和克林頓兩個(gè)陣營(yíng)的家人，試圖在不把對(duì)方打成殘廢的情況下坐在一起吃飯，今年美國(guó)的感恩節(jié)聚會(huì)顯然會(huì)很有意思——如果他們都參加聚會(huì)的話。
So this may be a good time to explore what psychologists and philosophers say are the most effective ways to argue. And by “argue” they do not mean “quarrel,” but communicate without rancor or faulty reasoning with someone who has an opposing viewpoint, with the hope of broadening one’s understanding of people and ideas.
因此，現(xiàn)在大概是探索心理學(xué)家和哲學(xué)家所說的最有效辯論方式的好時(shí)機(jī)。他們所說的“辯論”不是“爭(zhēng)吵”的意思，而是在不帶敵意，不進(jìn)行錯(cuò)誤推理的情況下，與持相反觀點(diǎn)的人交流，希望拓寬自己對(duì)人和理念的理解。
Here are a few suggestions:
下面是一些建議：
Listen Carefully
認(rèn)真聆聽
The aim of an argument should not be proving who is right, but conveying that you care about the issues, said Amy J. C. Cuddy, a social psychologist and associate professor at Harvard University.
哈佛大學(xué)社會(huì)心理學(xué)家、副教授艾米·J·C·卡迪(Amy J. C. Cuddy)說，辯論的目的不應(yīng)是證明誰是對(duì)的，而是傳遞出你關(guān)心相關(guān)問題這個(gè)信息。
Show the person with whom you are speaking that you care about what he or she says.
向和你交談的人表明你在乎他或她的話。
The goal should be to state your views and to hear theirs. It should not be: “I am not leaving until you admit that you are wrong, or here is what I believe, and I am not budging from this,” said Dr. Cuddy, who has explored the question in Business Insider columns.
辯論的目的應(yīng)該是闡明自己的觀點(diǎn)，并聽取他人的觀點(diǎn)。不應(yīng)該是：“你不承認(rèn)你錯(cuò)了我就不走，或這就是我的觀點(diǎn)，我不會(huì)退讓的，”卡迪說。她在Business Insider的專欄中探討過這個(gè)問題。
And when you listen, go all in. “Don’t half-listen while figuring out what you’re going to say next,” said Gary Gutting, a philosopher at Notre Dame.
聽的時(shí)候，要全身心投入。“不要一邊似聽非聽一邊考慮自己接下來說什么，”圣母大學(xué)(Notre Dame)哲學(xué)家加里·古廷(Gary Gutting)說。
Don’t ‘Drop the Anchor’
不要“拋錨”
Some people start an argument by staking their position and refusing to budge, an impulse that Dr. Cuddy called “dropping the anchor.”
一些人辯論一開始就表明自己的立場(chǎng)，拒絕讓步?？ǖ习堰@種沖動(dòng)叫“拋錨”。
Instead, try to understand the other person’s point of view; it does not mean you have to agree with him or her, or that you are abandoning deeply felt objections to, for example, racism or sexism, she said.
她說，相反，要試著去理解對(duì)方的觀點(diǎn);并不是說你必須同意他或她的觀點(diǎn)，或是放棄你深信不疑的反對(duì)立場(chǎng)，比如對(duì)種族主義或性別歧視的反對(duì)。
“Think of it from a courage perspective: I can go in and I am going to ask questions that are truly, honestly aimed at increasing my understanding of where he or she is coming from,” Dr. Cuddy said. “How did they get there, and what is leading to that?”
“從勇氣的角度來想：我可以發(fā)起攻勢(shì)，會(huì)問一些問題，它們真的會(huì)切實(shí)加強(qiáng)我對(duì)他或她為何有這種想法的了解，”卡迪說。“他們?cè)趺磿?huì)得出這樣的觀點(diǎn)，背后的原因是什么?”
Mind Your Body Language
注意肢體語言
Your body language can send messages that are more compelling than the words coming out of your mouth.
你的肢體語言傳遞出來的信息，可能比從你嘴里說出來的話更有說服力。
Try to avoid gestures that are patronizing or defensive, like crossing your arms or clenching your jaw.
盡量避免屈尊俯就或防御性的動(dòng)作，如抱臂或緊閉牙關(guān)。
Maintain eye contact in a way that is not a stare-down.
保持眼神交流，但不要死死盯著對(duì)方。
Lean forward slightly to show you are interested.
身體微微前傾，表示你很感興趣。
And no eye-rolling, Dr. Gutting said.
古廷還說，不要翻白眼。
Don’t Argue to Win
不要一心求勝
Dr. Gutting says it helps to use neutral or charitable language when acknowledging opposing viewpoints, especially during arguments over politics. It lays the groundwork for a more effective argument on points of genuine weakness.
古廷說，在承認(rèn)反方觀點(diǎn)時(shí)使用中性或?qū)捜莸恼Z言會(huì)起到幫助作用，尤其是在圍繞政治展開的辯論中。以此為基礎(chǔ)可以就一些真正薄弱的觀點(diǎn)展開更有效的辯論。
Don’t think of an argument as an opportunity to convince the other person of your view; think of it as a way totest and improve your opinions, and to gain a better understanding of the other side.
不要把辯論當(dāng)成一個(gè)說服對(duì)方相信自己的觀點(diǎn)的機(jī)會(huì)，把它看成一種考驗(yàn)和改進(jìn)自己的觀點(diǎn)，同時(shí)更好地了解對(duì)方的方式。
It is rarely productive to nitpick errors in your interlocutor’s remarks or to argue just to “win.”
對(duì)對(duì)方言語間的錯(cuò)誤吹毛求疵，或是只是為了“獲勝”而辯論，往往是沒什么意義的。
“People do give up views because of rational arguments against them,” Dr. Gutting said in the interview. “But this is almost always a long process, not the outcome of a single decisive encounter.”
“人們的確會(huì)因?yàn)閷?duì)方的理性論點(diǎn)而放棄自己的觀點(diǎn)，”古廷在接受采訪時(shí)說。“但這幾乎永遠(yuǎn)都是一個(gè)漫長(zhǎng)的過程，不是一場(chǎng)決定性的辯論就能帶來的結(jié)果。”
In his book “How to Argue About Politics,” Dr. Gutting writes that, in many political arguments, the people we think we “convince” almost always already agree with us. 在《如何辯論政治問題》(How to Argue About Politics)一書中，古廷寫道，在很多政治辯論中，我們自認(rèn)為能“說服”的人，幾乎總是已經(jīng)準(zhǔn)備好同意我們的觀點(diǎn)。
Know the Facts
了解事實(shí)
A good argument is supported by evidence, but that is just a starting point. Sometimes, especially with political back-and-forths, one side will look only at evidence supporting its own position, conveniently leaving out the full picture, Dr. Gutting noted.
一場(chǎng)精彩的辯論需要有證據(jù)的支撐，但這只是起點(diǎn)。古廷指出，有時(shí)候，特別是在政治交鋒中，一方會(huì)只關(guān)注支持己方立場(chǎng)的證據(jù)，對(duì)事情的全貌假裝看不見。
(This is called the fallacy of incomplete evidence. Here is an extensive list of fallacies, or unsound reasoning.)
(這種情況被稱作證據(jù)不完整謬誤。點(diǎn)擊此處查看一份有關(guān)謬誤或者說錯(cuò)誤推理的列表。)
“An effective argument would have to take account of all the relevant evidence,” he said. “一場(chǎng)有效的辯論必須考慮到所有相關(guān)證據(jù)，”他說。
Speak and Listen Fearlessly
大膽表達(dá)和聆聽
George Yancy, a philosophy professor at Emory University who has written extensively about race, was asked by a student this year why he even bothered to discuss race with white supremacists.
埃默里大學(xué)(Emory University)的哲學(xué)教授喬治·揚(yáng)希(George Yancy)撰寫了大量有關(guān)種族問題的文章。今年，一名學(xué)生問他為什么還要費(fèi)心和白人至上主義者討論種族問題。
Dr. Yancy said he told his student there was a need to inform white people about how African-Americans think about race.
揚(yáng)希對(duì)他的學(xué)生說，有必要讓白人知道，非裔美國(guó)人是怎么看待種族問題的。
“This is a moment when we are not just talking past each other, but against each other,” Dr. Yancy said in a telephone interview, speaking about the current national climate.
“此刻，我們不僅各執(zhí)一詞，還爭(zhēng)鋒相對(duì)，”揚(yáng)希在電話采訪中談及美國(guó)當(dāng)前的氣氛時(shí)說。
“So for me, the condition for a conversation has to be that you are unafraid to speak courageously, and you are unafraid to tell your partner exactly what it is that you think about the world.”
“因此對(duì)我來說，交談的條件是你必須不怕勇敢地發(fā)言，不害怕告訴同伴你對(duì)這個(gè)世界的看法究竟是什么。”
But a two-way argument also requires fearless listening, “even if it is me talking to a white supremacist who is trying to tell me that I am inferior,” he added. “One of the conditions for the possibility of a fruitful argument is to allow for some kind of opening up in myself to hear.”
但雙向的辯論還要求勇敢地聆聽，“哪怕此刻我面前是一個(gè)白人至上主義者，正試圖告訴我，我是低他一等的，”他接著說。“要想展開富有成效的討論，其中一個(gè)條件是我自己在某種程度上對(duì)外開放，傾聽對(duì)方的觀點(diǎn)。”
Sometimes it takes a painful step to find common ground, Dr. Yancy said.
揚(yáng)希說，有時(shí)候要邁出痛苦的一步，才能找到共同點(diǎn)。
“What you need to be able to do is to speak the same language,” he said. “They believe in God, and you would say: ‘You and I believe the same thing. How is it that this God who loves you can’t possibly love me?’ Is it possible that we can agree to disagree on some issues?”
“你需要具備的能力是采用同樣的語言，”他說。“他們信仰上帝，那么你可以說：‘你我有相同的信仰。這位上帝愛你，怎么可能不愛我呢?’我們有沒有可能在一些問題上求同存異?”
