TED演講中英字幕：如何讓有分歧的人開展對話

關鍵詞（Keyword）：TED演講，分歧，溝通，，影響力

演講簡介：

你是否困惑與不會交流的人怎樣溝通？怎樣建立人際關係？而真正的溝通需要練習、努力、 剋制和自我覺悟。 聽著名新聞創新者，公開演講者，作家和思想領袖Eve Pearlman教我們如何在生活中用欣賞細微差別、好奇心和尊重來進行高難度對話？

TED演講：如何讓有分歧的人開展對話（中英字幕版）

演講者：Eve Pearlman | TED Salon: Doha Debates
主 題：How to lead a conversation between people who disag
整 理：tedtalking

雙語演講稿：

So in the run-up to the 2016 election, I was, like most of us, watching the rise in discord and vitriol and nastiness in our public spaces. It was this crazy uptick in polarization. It was both disheartening and distressing. And so I started thinking, with a fellow journalist, Jeremy Hay, about how we might practice our craft differently. How we might go to the heart of divides, to places of conflict, like journalists always have, but then, once there, do something really different. We knew we wanted to take the core tools of our craft -- careful vetting of information, diligent research, curiosity, a commitment to serving the public good -- to serving our democracy -- and do something new. And so we mapped out this process, what we call dialogue journalism, for going to the heart of social and political divides, and then, once there, building journalism-supported conversations between people on opposite sides of polarizing issues.

在2016年大選的準備階段， 我和大多數人一樣，看到公眾空間中 越來越多的不和，刻薄和骯髒。 這是兩極分化的瘋狂升級。既令人沮喪又讓人苦惱。於是，我開始和一位名叫 傑里米·海伊的記者 一起思考如何用不同的方式 應用我們的技巧。如何才能像記者們經常做的那樣， 涉足分歧的中心， 到達衝突的地方。而一旦到了那裡， 做一些真正不同的事情。我們知道我們想要用核心技巧—— 認真審查資料，勤奮研究，充滿好奇， 對公共利益的承諾—— 去服務我們的民主—— 去做新的事情。於是我們想出了這個項目， 我們稱之為對話新聞， 去觸及社會和政治分歧的核心， 一旦到了那一步， 就可以在對立的兩派之間 建立起由新聞業支持的的對話。

But how actually to do this in a world that's so divided, so deeply divided -- when we live in a world in which cousins and aunts and uncles can't talk to one another, when we often live in separate and distinct news ecosystems, and when we reflexively and habitually malign and dismiss those with whom we disagree? But we wanted to try. And so right after the 2016 election, in that time between the election and the inauguration, we partnered with the Alabama Media Group to do something really different. We brought 25 Trump supporters from Alabama together in conversation with 25 Clinton supporters from California. And we brought them together in a closed, moderated Facebook group that we kept open for a month. What we wanted to do was to give them a place to engage with genuine curiosity and openness. And we wanted to support them in building relationships, not just with each other but with us as journalists. And then we wanted to supply facts and information -- facts and information that they could actually receive and process and use to undergird their conversations.

但如何在如此分裂， 裂痕如此之深的世界中 去做這樣的事？當我們所處的世界 堂兄弟姐妹和他們的 父母不彼此交談， 當我們常常生活在隔離 和不同的新聞生態系統中， 並且當我們反射性地、習慣性地詆譭 和排斥那些與我們意見相左的人？但我們仍想要試試。於是在2016年大選後， 在選舉和就職典禮之間那段時間， 我們和阿拉巴馬媒體集團合作， 做了一些非常不同的事情。我們從阿拉巴馬帶來了 25位川普的支持者， 與來自加州的25位 希拉里·克林頓的支持者進行對話。我們把他們放到一個封閉的 有管理員的Facebook群組上， 觀察了一個月。我們想要做的是 給他們一個場所， 保持真誠的好奇和開放態度。並且我們想要幫助他們建立關係， 不僅在他們之間，並且和我們記者之間。然後我們想要提供事實和信息， 讓他們可以節接受和思考， 並可以用來增強他們的談資。

And so as a prelude to this conversation, the first step in what we call dialogue journalism, we asked what they thought the other side thought of them. So when we asked the Trump supporters from Alabama what they thought the Clinton supporters in California thought of them, this is some of what they said. "They think we are religious Bible thumpers." "That we're backwards and hickish, and stupid." "They think that we all have Confederate flags in our yards, that we're racist and sexist and uneducated." "They think we're barefoot and pregnant, with dirt driveways." "And they think we're all prissy butts and that we walk around in hoop skirts with cotton fields in the background."

作為這次對話的引子， 這個我們稱之為對話新聞的第一步， 我們詢問他們認為對方會如何看待他們。當我們問阿拉巴馬的川普支持者 加州的希拉里支持者如何看待他們時， 他們是這樣說的：“他們認為我們是狂熱的宗教信徒。” “我們是落後愚蠢的鄉巴佬。” “他們認為我們的院子裡 都是南方聯盟的旗幟， 我們是種族主義者， 性別歧視者，沒受過教育。” “他們覺得在塵土飛揚的馬路上 經常能看到赤腳和懷孕的人。” “他們認為我們都是鄉巴佬， 穿著箍裙在棉花田中四處走動。”

And then we asked that same question of the Californians: "What do you think the Alabamians think about you?" And they said this: "That we're crazy, liberal Californians." "That we're not patriotic." "We're snobby and we're elitist." "We're godless and we're permissive with our children." "And that we're focused on our careers, not our family." "That we're elitist, pie-in-the-sky intellectuals, rich people, Whole Foods-eating, very out of touch."

然後我們對加州的人問了同樣的問題：“你們認為阿拉巴馬的人會怎麼看你們？” 他們是這麼說的：“我們是瘋狂的，自由的加州人。” “我們不愛國。” “我們勢利，我們是所謂的精英。” “我們不信神， 我們對孩子放任自由。” “我們關注工作，而不是家庭。” “我們是精英主義者、空想家、 有錢人、全食主義者， 非常脫節。”

So by asking questions like this at the start of every conversation and by identifying and sharing stereotypes, we find that people -- people on all sides -- begin to see the simplistic and often mean-spirited caricatures they carry. And in that -- after that, we can move into a process of genuine conversation.

所以通過在每次對話前 問這樣的問題， 通過識別和分享刻板印象， 我們發現人們——兩邊的人—— 開始看到他們所攜帶的印象 往往是簡單且刻薄的。在這之後， 我們開始了真正的對話。

So in the two years since that launch -- California/Alabama Project -- we've gone on to host dialogues and partnerships with media organizations across the country. And they've been about some of our most contentious issues: guns, immigration, race, education. And what we found, remarkably, is that real dialogue is in fact possible. And that when given a chance and structure around doing so, many, not all, but many of our fellow citizens are eager to engage with the other.

在加州/阿拉巴馬項目發起的兩年後—— 我們繼續與全國各地的媒體組織 舉辦對話和開展合作。他們一直在討論一些最有爭議的話題：槍支，移民，種族，教育。我們發現， 很明顯， 真正的對話實際上是可能的。當有機會按這樣的組織結構去做時， 很多，雖然不是全部， 但我們的很多公民 非常渴望彼此互動。

Too often journalists have sharpened divides in the name of drama or readership or in service to our own views. And too often we've gone to each side quoting a partisan voice on one side and a partisan voice on the other with a telling anecdotal lead and a pithy final quote, all of which readers are keen to mine for bias. But our dialogue-based process has a slower pace and a different center. And our work is guided by the principle that dialogue across difference is essential to a functioning democracy, and that journalism and journalists have a multifaceted role to play in supporting that.

記者常常激化分歧， 以因為戲劇化，迎合讀者口味 或做出一些主觀臆斷更吸引眼球。我們常常站在兩派的立場上， 一邊引用一個黨派的聲音， 另一邊引用另一個黨派的聲音， 並加上軼事式的開場和精闢的結束語， 所有的讀者都熱衷於挖掘偏見。但是，我們基於對話的過程 節奏較慢，而且主題繁雜。我們的工作是基於這個原則：直面差異的對話對民主很關鍵， 新聞業和記者可以發揮多方面的作用 進行支持。

So how do we work? At every stage, we're as transparent as possible about our methods and our motives. At every stage, we take time to answer people's questions -- explain why we're doing what we're doing. We tell people that it's not a trap: no one's there to tell you you're stupid, no one's there to tell you your experience doesn't matter. And we always ask for a really different sort of behavior, a repatterning away from the reflexive name-calling, so entrenched in our discourse that most of us, on all sides, don't even notice it anymore.

那麼我們究竟是如何運作的？在每個環節，我們都儘可能地 公開我們的方法和我們的動機。在每個環節，我們都抽時間 回答人們的問題—— 解釋我們為什麼做，在做什麼。我們告訴人們，不要擔心：這裡沒人會說你很蠢， 這裡沒人會說你的經歷不重要。我們總是要求一種完全不同的行為， 避開習慣性的反身謾罵， 這我們的語境中是如此根深蒂固， 以至於所有陣營中的 大多數人甚至都沒有注意到它。

So people often come into our conversations a bit angrily. They say things like, "How can you believe X?" and "How can you read Y?" and "Can you believe that this happened?" But generally, in this miracle that delights us every time, people begin to introduce themselves. And they begin to explain who they are and where they come from, and they begin to ask questions of one another. And slowly, over time, people circle back again and again to difficult topics, each time with a little more empathy, a little more nuance, a little more curiosity. And our journalists and moderators work really hard to support this because it's not a debate, it's not a battle, it's not a Sunday morning talk show. It's not the flinging of talking points. It's not the stacking of memes and gifs or articles with headlines that prove a point. And it's not about scoring political victories with question traps.

人們參與我們的對話時 往往都有些氣憤。他們往往帶著這樣的口吻：“你怎麼會相信張三？” 和“你怎麼會相信那種鬼話？” 以及“太讓人難以置信了！” 但總的來說，在這個每次 都讓我們興奮不已的奇蹟中， 人們開始介紹他們自己。他們開始解釋自己是誰，來自哪裡， 並且開始相互問問題。慢慢的，隨著時間推移， 人們循環參與不同的話題， 每次都會更富有同理心， 抓住更多的細微差異， 更好奇。我們的記者和主持人在努力提供支持， 因為這不是辯論，不是戰爭， 這不是週日早間脫口秀。不是賣弄詞藻， 更不應該用堆滿表情包和動圖 或者帶標題的文章來證明自己的觀點。這不是用問題陷阱 贏得政治勝利的套路。

So what we've learned is that our state of discord is bad for everyone. It is a deeply unhappy state of being. And people tell us this again and again. They say they appreciate the chance to engage respectfully, with curiosity and with openness, and that they're glad and relieved for a chance to put down their arms. And so we do our work in direct challenge to the political climate in our country right now, and we do it knowing that it is difficult, challenging work to hold and support people in opposing backgrounds in conversation. And we do it knowing democracy depends on our ability to address our shared problems together. And we do this work by putting community at the heart of our journalistic process, by putting our egos to the side to listen first, to listen deeply, to listen around and through our own biases, our own habits of thought, and to support others in doing the same. And we do this work knowing that journalism as an institution is struggling, and that it has always had a role to play and will continue to have a role to play in supporting the exchange of ideas and views.

所以我們瞭解到，不和諧狀態 對所有人都是壞事。這種狀態讓所有人都感到沮喪。人們一再告訴我們這點。他們說，他們很感激有機會以尊重、 好奇和開放的態度參與進來， 他們為有機會放下戒備 而感到高興和寬慰。因此，我們的工作是直接挑戰 我國內目前的政治氣候， 我們知道去舉辦和支持不同背景的人對話 這是一項困難而有挑戰性的工作。我們知道民主取決於我們 一起解決共同問題的能力。我們做這個工作是通過把社群 放在我們新聞過程的中心， 通過把自我先放在一邊， 先傾聽，認真傾聽， 傾聽周圍的聲音，通過我們的偏見， 我們自己的思維習慣， 並且支持別人也這樣做。我們在行動的時候就知道 新聞業面對這個問題一直很掙扎， 它一直需要扮演， 並且要繼續扮演 支持交換意見和觀點的角色。

For many of the participants in our groups, there are lasting reverberations. Many people have become Facebook friends and in-real-life friends too, across political lines. After we closed that first Trump/Clinton project, about two-thirds of the women went on to form their own Facebook group and they chose a moderator from each state and they continue to talk about difficult and challenging issues. People tell us again and again that they're grateful for the opportunity to be a part of this work, grateful to know that people on the other side aren't crazy, grateful that they've had a chance to connect with people they wouldn't have otherwise talked to.

對我們隊伍中的許多參與者而言， 這產生了持續的影響。很多人成為了Facebook的好友 和現實中的好友， 跨越了政治的邊界。在我們關掉第一個川普/希拉里項目後， 大約2/3的女性，開設了 她們自己的Facebook群組， 並且她們從每個州選了個主持人 去繼續討論分歧和具有挑戰的問題。人們一次又一次地告訴我們， 他們很感激有這個機會 成為這個項目中的一部分， 很慶幸知道另一邊的人並非不可理喻， 很高興他們有機會能夠跟 可能永遠都不會去交流的人建立聯繫。

A lot of what we've seen and learned, despite the fact that we call ourselves Spaceship Media, is not at all rocket science. If you call people names, if you label them, if you insult them, they are not inclined to listen to you. Snark doesn't help, shame doesn't help, condescension doesn't help. Genuine communication takes practice and effort and restraint and self-awareness. There isn't an algorithm to solve where we are. Because real human connection is in fact real human connection. So lead with curiosity, emphasize discussion not debate, get out of your silo, because real connection across difference ... this is a salve that our democracy sorely needs.

儘管我們稱自己為宇宙飛船媒體， 但我們看到和學到的很多東西， 並不是什麼高深的學問。如果你對人出言不遜，如果你給他們 貼上標籤，如果你侮辱他們， 他們就會傾向於對你置之不理。惡聲惡語幫不上忙，羞恥感沒有用， 態度傲慢無更是雪上加霜。 真正的溝通需要練習、努力、 剋制和自我覺悟。沒有一個算法可以解決我們現在的處境。因為真正的人際關係就是人際關係。所以以好奇為指引， 強調討論而非爭執， 避免坐井觀天， 因為跨越分歧的真正連接—— 正是我們民主迫切需要的一劑強心針。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

傳播有價值的思想和觀點！
我相信這些新觀點和有價值思想將讓我們的人生大不同！
從中英文字幕到無字幕，重複視聽，享受演講內容！

閱讀更多 TED英語演講新視角 的文章

關鍵字: 溝通 TED演講 演講