Chris Anderson: So, Jon, this feels scary.
Jon, 这感觉真有点恐怖。
Jonathan Haidt: Yeah.
JH:是的。
CA: It feels like the world is in a place that we haven't seen for a long time. People don't just disagree in the way that we're familiar with, on the left-right political divide. There are much deeper differences afoot. What on earth is going on, and how did we get here?
CA: 好像世人形同陌路, 不曾相识。 人们不只是一如往常, 对左右派的分歧争执不休, 还有更深层次的疏离。 究竟发生了什么? 我们为何变成这样?
JH: This is different. There's a much more apocalyptic sort of feeling. Survey research by Pew Research shows that the degree to which we feel that the other side is not just -- we don't just dislike them; we strongly dislike them, and we think that they are a threat to the nation. Those numbers have been going up and up, and those are over 50 percent now on both sides. People are scared, because it feels like this is different than before; it's much more intense.
JH: 现在不同以往, 有种世界末日般绝望的感觉。 皮尤研究的调查显示, 我们对另一派的感觉程度, 并不是简单地不喜欢他们 或强烈地不喜欢他们。 我们觉得对方对整个民族造成了威胁。 这些人的占比一直在上升, 现在两边具有这种想法的人都超过了50%。 人们感到恐惧, 因为这种感觉有别于以前, 而且特别的强烈。
Whenever I look at any sort of social puzzle, I always apply the three basic principles of moral psychology, and I think they'll help us here. So the first thing that you have to always keep in mind when you're thinking about politics is that we're tribal. We evolved for tribalism. One of the simplest and greatest insights into human social nature is the Bedouin proverb: "Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; me and my brother and cousins against the stranger." And that tribalism allowed us to create large societies and to come together in order to compete with others. That brought us out of the jungle and out of small groups, but it means that we have eternal conflict. The question you have to look at is: What aspects of our society are making that more bitter, and what are calming them down?
每当我审视社会难题时, 我都会采用三个最基本的 道德心理学原则, 在这里应该也能起到作用。 所以,当考虑政治问题时, 必须首先意识到, 我们是部落式的, 我们演化为部落主义。 其中最简单且最伟大 揭示人类社会本质的谚语 是由贝都因总结的: “ 我反对我的兄弟; 我和我兄弟反对我们的表兄; 而我们一起反对陌生人。" 部落主义使我们自身的 社会逐渐强大, 大家一起便可与其他部落抗衡。 这使我们走出丛林 逐渐壮大, 但也意味着固有的矛盾性。 你需要关注的问题是: 我们的社会 在哪些方面使之恶化, 又在哪些方面平息了这种矛盾?
CA: That's a very dark proverb. You're saying that that's actually baked into most people's mental wiring at some level?
CA: 这谚语听上去挺沉重。 你是说在一定程度上, 这种观念对大多数人来说 是根深蒂固的?
JH: Oh, absolutely. This is just a basic aspect of human social cognition. But we can also live together really peacefully, and we've invented all kinds of fun ways of, like, playing war. I mean, sports, politics -- these are all ways that we get to exercise this tribal nature without actually hurting anyone. We're also really good at trade and exploration and meeting new people. So you have to see our tribalism as something that goes up or down -- it's not like we're doomed to always be fighting each other, but we'll never have world peace.
JH:哦,绝对的 这是人类社会认知的基本方面, 但我们也可以和平共处。 而且我们还发明了各种 的有趣的活动,例如模拟打仗。 我是说体育,政治—— 这些活动都是在不伤及他人的情况下, 体现这种部落性质。 我们也非常擅长贸易, 探险和认识新朋友。 所以必须把部落主义 看作是有毁誉参半的—— 我们并不是注定就是相互争斗。 但永远没有世界和平。
CA: The size of that tribe can shrink or expand.
CA:部落的大小可以缩小 也可以增大。
JH: Right.
JH: 对的。
CA: The size of what we consider "us" and what we consider "other" or "them" can change. And some people believed that process could continue indefinitely.
CA:我们认为“我们”的大小, 以及我们认为的“其他”或“他们”, 都是可以变化的。 有些人认为这个过程 可以无限期地继续。
JH: That's right.
JH: 是的。
CA: And we were indeed expanding the sense of tribe for a while.
CA:我们对部落的认同确实在扩张。
JH: So this is, I think, where we're getting at what's possibly the new left-right distinction. I mean, the left-right as we've all inherited it, comes out of the labor versus capital distinction, and the working class, and Marx. But I think what we're seeing now, increasingly, is a divide in all the Western democracies between the people who want to stop at nation, the people who are more parochial -- and I don't mean that in a bad way -- people who have much more of a sense of being rooted, they care about their town, their community and their nation. And then those who are anti-parochial and who -- whenever I get confused, I just think of the John Lennon song "Imagine." "Imagine there's no countries, nothing to kill or die for." And so these are the people who want more global governance, they don't like nation states, they don't like borders. You see this all over Europe as well. There's a great metaphor guy -- actually, his name is Shakespeare -- writing ten years ago in Britain. He had a metaphor: "Are we drawbridge-uppers or drawbridge-downers?" And Britain is divided 52-48 on that point. And America is divided on that point, too.
JH:所以我认为, 这可能就是 新的左右派别分歧出现的地方。 我的意思是 我们所了解的左右派, 来自劳动力与资本的差异 和工人阶级,马克思。 但现在 我们所看到越来越多的是 西方民主国家内部的分歧。 一些人主张本国内 狭隘的民族主义, 我没有贬低之意, 他们关心自己的城镇, 社区和国家的盛衰。 立足于本位主义。 而另外一些人是则是 反狭隘主义的。 每当我对此困惑时 就会想起约翰·列侬的“想象”: “想象一个没有国界的地方, 没有杀戮或战争“。 这些人想要更多的治理全球, 他们不喜欢民族化的国家 他们不喜欢边界, 这在欧洲也极其普遍。 有个家伙做了形象的比喻 实际上,他的名字叫莎士比亚—— 是十年前在英国时写的, 他的比喻是这样的: “我们是闭关锁国好呢 还是‘大开闸门’好呢?” 英国对此以52-48的比例分裂, 在这一点上美国也分歧很大。
CA: And so, those of us who grew up with The Beatles and that sort of hippie philosophy of dreaming of a more connected world -- it felt so idealistic and "how could anyone think badly about that?" And what you're saying is that, actually, millions of people today feel that that isn't just silly; it's actually dangerous and wrong, and they're scared of it.
CA:我们这些与披头士一同长大, 追随世界大同的嬉皮哲学的人们, 惊讶:如此的理想主义“怎么可能 有人认为它不好?“ 你现在所说的,实际上是: 成千上万的人们不仅觉得它愚蠢, 更是危险和错误的, 他们对此恐惧。
JH: I think the big issue, especially in Europe but also here, is the issue of immigration. And I think this is where we have to look very carefully at the social science about diversity and immigration. Once something becomes politicized, once it becomes something that the left loves and the right -- then even the social scientists can't think straight about it. Now, diversity is good in a lot of ways. It clearly creates more innovation. The American economy has grown enormously from it. Diversity and immigration do a lot of good things. But what the globalists, I think, don't see, what they don't want to see, is that ethnic diversity cuts social capital and trust.
JH:我认为关键问题 特别是在欧洲, 但就算这里也如此: 就是移民问题。 我认为我们必须 从社会学的角度来 审视多样性和移民问题。 一旦事物被政治化, 一旦它成为左派的挚爱 右派的天敌, 那么甚至社会学家都不得其解。 现在,多样性在很多方面是好的, 它明显开创了许多先河。 美国经济的迅速增长 大大得益于此。 多样性和移民贡献了很多好的东西。 但是全球主义者没有看到, 或是不想看到的是: 种族多样性 削减了社会资本和彼此的信任。
There's a very important study by Robert Putnam, the author of "Bowling Alone," looking at social capital databases. And basically, the more people feel that they are the same, the more they trust each other, the more they can have a redistributionist welfare state. Scandinavian countries are so wonderful because they have this legacy of being small, homogenous countries. And that leads to a progressive welfare state, a set of progressive left-leaning values, which says, "Drawbridge down! The world is a great place. People in Syria are suffering -- we must welcome them in." And it's a beautiful thing. But if, and I was in Sweden this summer, if the discourse in Sweden is fairly politically correct and they can't talk about the downsides, you end up bringing a lot of people in. That's going to cut social capital, it makes it hard to have a welfare state and they might end up, as we have in America, with a racially divided, visibly racially divided, society. So this is all very uncomfortable to talk about. But I think this is the thing, especially in Europe and for us, too, we need to be looking at.
“独自玩保龄”的作者 罗伯特普特南 有一个非常重要的 有关社会资本数据库的研究: 基本上 人们越觉得彼此类似, 就越会彼此信任, 他们就越有可能 重新分配国家的福利。 斯堪的纳维亚国家之所以好, 就是因为他们有保持小国同质的传统, 从而形成了高质的福利国家。 一些左倾价值思潮践行 “国门打开! 世界本是美好的 叙利亚人民正在受苦, 我们必须欢迎他们。“ 这本是一件美丽的事情。 但如果 今年夏天我是在瑞典, 所用话题都必须 在政治上保持其正确性, 不能谈论它的任何缺陷。 引进大量人口, 那将削减社会资本, 这将很难保持原有的社会福利。 最后就像我们美国一样: 成为种族分裂 且是明显的种族分裂的社会。 这一切都非常难以启齿, 但我认为这些, 特别是在欧洲和我们, 都必须直视的。
CA: You're saying that people of reason, people who would consider themselves not racists, but moral, upstanding people, have a rationale that says humans are just too different; that we're in danger of overloading our sense of what humans are capable of, by mixing in people who are too different.
CA:你是说有理性的人, 他们不认为自己是种族主义者, 但从道义上讲, 直率的人有理由说 人类只是太不同了。 融合极其不同的人种 实际上超出了我们的能力 从而变得岌岌可危。
JH: Yes, but I can make it much more palatable by saying it's not necessarily about race. It's about culture. There's wonderful work by a political scientist named Karen Stenner, who shows that when people have a sense that we are all united, we're all the same, there are many people who have a predisposition to authoritarianism. Those people aren't particularly racist when they feel as through there's not a threat to our social and moral order. But if you prime them experimentally by thinking we're coming apart, people are getting more different, then they get more racist, homophobic, they want to kick out the deviants. So it's in part that you get an authoritarian reaction. The left, following through the Lennonist line -- the John Lennon line -- does things that create an authoritarian reaction.
JH:是的,但我可以换种说法 可能更容易接受。 这不一定是种族的区别, 而是文化的不同。 有一个叫凯伦·斯登纳的政治学者 做了一项精彩的研究: 它显示出: 当人们认为彼此团结时 大家都是一样的, 其中有很多人都有 独裁主义的倾向。 当他们觉得 社会和道德秩序没有受到威胁时, 这部分人并不是特别的种族主义者, 但是在实验中如果告诉他们 人们来自不同的地方 那么他们就会变得有所区分。 出现更多的种族主义者,憎恨同性恋者 他们便想驱逐异教徒, 这就是产生专制的部分原因。 那些追随列宁主义, 约翰·列侬的左派, 他们的意识形态创造了专制反应。
We're certainly seeing that in America with the alt-right. We saw it in Britain, we've seen it all over Europe. But the more positive part of that is that I think the localists, or the nationalists, are actually right -- that, if you emphasize our cultural similarity, then race doesn't actually matter very much. So an assimilationist approach to immigration removes a lot of these problems. And if you value having a generous welfare state, you've got to emphasize that we're all the same.
当然我们在美国的极其右派中 也看到了同样的情形。 在英国,我们见到它 同样地,整个欧洲也在盛行。 但其积极的一部分在于 我认为, 主张本地化或民族主义者 实际上是正确的: 如果你强调文化的相似性, 种族实际上并不那么重要。 所以移民同化措施 会消除很多这些问题。 如果你想要 一个慷慨的福利国家, 你必须强调大家都一样。
CA: OK, so rising immigration and fears about that are one of the causes of the current divide. What are other causes?
CA:好吧,移民和对此的担忧 越来越多 是当前分裂的原因之一, 另外 还有什么其他原因呢?
JH: The next principle of moral psychology is that intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second. You've probably heard the term "motivated reasoning" or "confirmation bias." There's some really interesting work on how our high intelligence and our verbal abilities might have evolved not to help us find out the truth, but to help us manipulate each other, defend our reputation ... We're really, really good at justifying ourselves. And when you bring group interests into account, so it's not just me, it's my team versus your team, whereas if you're evaluating evidence that your side is wrong, we just can't accept that. So this is why you can't win a political argument. If you're debating something, you can't persuade the person with reasons and evidence, because that's not the way reasoning works. So now, give us the internet, give us Google: "I heard that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Let me Google that -- oh my God! 10 million hits! Look, he was!"
JH:道德心理学的另一个原则是: 直觉占先,合理的推论排在第二。 你可能听说过术语“动机推理” 或“确认偏差”。 关于我们的高智商和言语能力 有一些很有趣的研究结果: 随着进化 它们不再是帮助我们找出真相的工具, 而是帮助我们互相操纵, 保护我们的声誉... 我们极其善于强词夺理 当开始考虑集团利益时 不再只是我, 而是我的团队抗衡你的团队 尽管有证据证明你是错的, 我们也不能接受, 这就是为什么你赢不了政治辩论。 如果你在辩论一个话题 你不能用理由和证据说服对方, 因为这对推理不起作用。 所以现在,给我们互联网 给我们Google “我听说了奥巴马出生在肯尼亚 让我Google 一下 - 我的上帝! 1000万次点击! 看,真的是呀!“
CA: So this has come as an unpleasant surprise to a lot of people. Social media has often been framed by techno-optimists as this great connecting force that would bring people together. And there have been some unexpected counter-effects to that.
CA:所以这个不怎么样的现实 震惊了很多人。 社交媒体经常被高科技乐观者, 模式化成使人们相互连接的伟大动力。 但实际上 它也制造了意想不到的反作用力。
JH: That's right. That's why I'm very enamored of yin-yang views of human nature and left-right -- that each side is right about certain things, but then it goes blind to other things. And so the left generally believes that human nature is good: bring people together, knock down the walls and all will be well. The right -- social conservatives, not libertarians -- social conservatives generally believe people can be greedy and sexual and selfish, and we need regulation, and we need restrictions. So, yeah, if you knock down all the walls, allow people to communicate all over the world, you get a lot of porn and a lot of racism.
JH:没错, 这就是为什么我很沉迷于 对人性的阴阳观点和左右派别—— 每一方对某些问题都是一定的正确性, 但对另一面又有盲目性。 所以左派一般都相信人性是好的, 清除障碍,让人们聚在一起 一切都会变得美好。 右派——社会保守主义者 不是自由主义者—— 社会保守主义者一般认为, 人们贪婪,性别歧视和自私, 我们需要监管和限制。 如果拆除障碍 允许世界各地的人们随意沟通, 色情的东西便会泛滥 出现很多种族主义者。
CA: So help us understand. These principles of human nature have been with us forever. What's changed that's deepened this feeling of division?
CA:那么帮助我们理解一下, 这些人性的本质 与生俱来,挥之不去, 那么是什么加深了 这种分裂的感觉呢?
JH: You have to see six to ten different threads all coming together. I'll just list a couple of them. So in America, one of the big -- actually, America and Europe -- one of the biggest ones is World War II. There's interesting research from Joe Henrich and others that says if your country was at war, especially when you were young, then we test you 30 years later in a commons dilemma or a prisoner's dilemma, you're more cooperative. Because of our tribal nature, if you're -- my parents were teenagers during World War II, and they would go out looking for scraps of aluminum to help the war effort. I mean, everybody pulled together. And so then these people go on, they rise up through business and government, they take leadership positions. They're really good at compromise and cooperation. They all retire by the '90s. So we're left with baby boomers by the end of the '90s. And their youth was spent fighting each other within each country, in 1968 and afterwards. The loss of the World War II generation, "The Greatest Generation," is huge. So that's one.
JH:你会遇到六到十个 不同的原因交织在一起, 我在这里只列举几个原因: 在美国, 实际上包括美国和欧洲 最关键的是第二次世界大战。 Joe Henrich和其他一些人的有趣研究发现, 如果你的国家沦陷战争, 特别是在你小的时候, 30年后在一般的困境 或牢狱中再测试你, 你更善于合作。 因为我们的部落性质—— 我父母的青少年时期正值 第二次世界大战期间, 他们会出去寻找铝屑 来支持战争, 我的意思是,大家团结一致。 然后这些人成长, 他们通过生意或在政府部门任职 渐入佳境 从而担任领导职位, 他们真的很擅长 妥协和合作, 他们都在90年代退休了。 到90年代末 我们只剩下婴儿潮一代—— 1968年以后。 他们的青春奋斗只发生在 每个国家的内部, 失去二战这“最伟大的一代” 损失巨大, 这是原因之一。
Another, in America, is the purification of the two parties. There used to be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. So America had a mid-20th century that was really bipartisan. But because of a variety of factors that started things moving, by the 90's, we had a purified liberal party and conservative party. So now, the people in either party really are different, and we really don't want our children to marry them, which, in the '60s, didn't matter very much. So, the purification of the parties. Third is the internet and, as I said, it's just the most amazing stimulant for post-hoc reasoning and demonization.
在美国另外一个原因是两党的净化, 曾经我们是自由共和党 和保守民主党。 在20世纪中叶 美国是真正的两党制, 但是由于各种因素 情况开始变化, 到了90年代,我们有了净化后的 自由党和保守党。 现在,两个党派中的成员截然不同, 我们开始反对彼此的子女联姻。 但在60年代,这没有什么关系。 这便党派净化的原因。 第三个便是互联网,如上所述, 这是事后颠倒黑白魔鬼般 最具刺激性的推动力。
CA: The tone of what's happening on the internet now is quite troubling. I just did a quick search on Twitter about the election and saw two tweets next to each other. One, against a picture of racist graffiti: "This is disgusting! Ugliness in this country, brought to us by #Trump." And then the next one is: "Crooked Hillary dedication page. Disgusting!" So this idea of "disgust" is troubling to me. Because you can have an argument or a disagreement about something, you can get angry at someone. Disgust, I've heard you say, takes things to a much deeper level.
CA:现在互联网上的某些评论相当恶劣, 我只是在Twitter上 做了一下有关选举的快速搜索, 看到两个彼此相邻的tweets, 一个是针对一张种族主义涂鸦的图片: “这真是太恶心了! 在这个国家 Trump带给我们丑陋之物。” 下一个是: “ 骗子希拉里奉献的页面, 恶心!“ 这种“厌恶”的想法困扰着我, 因为你可以争论一件事 或对某事有分歧, 你可以生某人的气。 厌恶,我听说你说过 使事情深层化。
JH: That's right. Disgust is different. Anger -- you know, I have kids. They fight 10 times a day, and they love each other 30 times a day. You just go back and forth: you get angry, you're not angry; you're angry, you're not angry. But disgust is different. Disgust paints the person as subhuman, monstrous, deformed, morally deformed. Disgust is like indelible ink. There's research from John Gottman on marital therapy. If you look at the faces -- if one of the couple shows disgust or contempt, that's a predictor that they're going to get divorced soon, whereas if they show anger, that doesn't predict anything, because if you deal with anger well, it actually is good.
JH:没错 厌恶是不同的, 生气——你知道 我有孩子。 他们每天打10次架 但每天互相示爱30次。 你只是来回反复: 你生气,你不生气, 你生气,你不生气…… 但厌恶是不同的, 厌恶形容此人是 亚人类,怪异, 变态,道德败坏。 厌恶就像不褪色的墨水。 在约翰·高特曼婚姻治疗的研究中显示: 观察夫妇的脸,如果其中一个人的脸 表现出厌恶或蔑视, 这将预示他们很快就要离婚了。 相反,如果他们表现出愤怒 这不预示任何东西。 因为如果你能处理好愤怒 它实际上是好兆头。
So this election is different. Donald Trump personally uses the word "disgust" a lot. He's very germ-sensitive, so disgust does matter a lot -- more for him, that's something unique to him -- but as we demonize each other more, and again, through the Manichaean worldview, the idea that the world is a battle between good and evil as this has been ramping up, we're more likely not just to say they're wrong or I don't like them, but we say they're evil, they're satanic, they're disgusting, they're revolting. And then we want nothing to do with them. And that's why I think we're seeing it, for example, on campus now. We're seeing more the urge to keep people off campus, silence them, keep them away. I'm afraid that this whole generation of young people, if their introduction to politics involves a lot of disgust, they're not going to want to be involved in politics as they get older.
所以这次选举截然不同, 唐纳德·特朗普口口声声 使用了许多“厌恶”, 他对细菌非常敏感 所以厌恶很重要—— 更多为他,这是他的独到之处。 但是当我们多次相互丑化, 仅是通过非此即彼的二元观点看问题, 世界将在善与恶之间斗争 从而矛盾愈演愈烈。 更多时候 我们可能不只是说 他们错了或我不喜欢他们, 而是说他们是邪恶的,是撒旦, 他们很恶心,令人作呕。 而后,我们拒绝与他们来往。 这就是为什么我们会遇到这些冲突。 例如,在校园里, 我们看到更多的紧急措施 让人们离校。 保持沉默,让他们远离, 恐怕整个这代年轻人, 如果在他们刚刚涉及政治时 就出现这么多的厌恶, 那么在他们成熟后 恐怕不会想参与政治。
CA: So how do we deal with that? Disgust. How do you defuse disgust?
CA:那么我们如何解决厌恶 如何消除厌恶呢?
JH: You can't do it with reasons. I think ... I studied disgust for many years, and I think about emotions a lot. And I think that the opposite of disgust is actually love. Love is all about, like ... Disgust is closing off, borders. Love is about dissolving walls. So personal relationships, I think, are probably the most powerful means we have. You can be disgusted by a group of people, but then you meet a particular person and you genuinely discover that they're lovely. And then gradually that chips away or changes your category as well. The tragedy is, Americans used to be much more mixed up in the their towns by left-right or politics. And now that it's become this great moral divide, there's a lot of evidence that we're moving to be near people who are like us politically. It's harder to find somebody who's on the other side. So they're over there, they're far away. It's harder to get to know them.
JH:好像不能以理服人, 我认为... 我研究厌恶多年 我想它与情绪密切相关。 我认为与厌恶相对的实际上就是爱, 爱就是所有,像... 厌恶是关闭,有边界。 爱是关于消除障碍, 我认为,个人关系 可能是我们具有的 最强大的武器。 你可以被一群人厌恶, 随后,你遇到某一特定的人, 然后你真正地发现 他们很可爱, 然后逐渐把你也同化了。 可惜的是 美国人以前不分左右政治, 在他们的城镇相互融合, 但现在形成了这个伟大的道德鸿沟。 有很多证据表明 谁在政治上与我们一致, 我们就会像他们靠近, 很难找到志同道合的异党。 因此,他们虽然就在附近 但离我们很远, 也很难去了解他们。
CA: What would you say to someone or say to Americans, people generally, about what we should understand about each other that might help us rethink for a minute this "disgust" instinct?
CA:你会告诫某人 或美国人 或大众 我们应该如何了解对方, 从而有助于我们重新思考一下, 这个“厌恶”的本能?
JH: Yes. A really important thing to keep in mind -- there's research by political scientist Alan Abramowitz, showing that American democracy is increasingly governed by what's called "negative partisanship." That means you think, OK there's a candidate, you like the candidate, you vote for the candidate. But with the rise of negative advertising and social media and all sorts of other trends, increasingly, the way elections are done is that each side tries to make the other side so horrible, so awful, that you'll vote for my guy by default.
JH:对呀, 记住这点很重要—— 政治学家Alan Abramowitz的研究表明, 美国的民主越来越受到 所谓的“消极党派“的掌控。 这意味着 OK 有一个候选人, 你喜欢这个候选人 投票给他/她, 但随着负面消息 在社交媒体 和各种其他媒体的传播, 选举就完蛋了。 每一方都在试图把 另一方丑化成可怕,可耻的家伙, 从而投票给我方成了默认方式。
And so as we more and more vote against the other side and not for our side, you have to keep in mind that if people are on the left, they think, "Well, I used to think that Republicans were bad, but now Donald Trump proves it. And now every Republican, I can paint with all the things that I think about Trump." And that's not necessarily true. They're generally not very happy with their candidate.
因此越来越多的投票 是反对另一边, 而不是支持我们这边。 你必须记住 如果人支持左派, 他们认为 “嗯,我以前觉得共和党人是坏的” 现在唐纳德·特朗普证明这点, 那么每个共和党人, 我都可以用我所了解特朗普的东西脸谱化。 但这不一定是真的, 他们一般也不喜欢他们的候选人,
This is the most negative partisanship election in American history. So you have to first separate your feelings about the candidate from your feelings about the people who are given a choice. And then you have to realize that, because we all live in a separate moral world -- the metaphor I use in the book is that we're all trapped in "The Matrix," or each moral community is a matrix, a consensual hallucination. And so if you're within the blue matrix, everything's completely compelling that the other side -- they're troglodytes, they're racists, they're the worst people in the world, and you have all the facts to back that up. But somebody in the next house from yours is living in a different moral matrix. They live in a different video game, and they see a completely different set of facts. And each one sees different threats to the country. And what I've found from being in the middle and trying to understand both sides is: both sides are right. There are a lot of threats to this country, and each side is constitutionally incapable of seeing them all.
这次选举是美国历史上最消极的党派之争。 所以首选你必须区分 你对候选人的感受 和对选民的感受。 然后你必须意识到, 为我们都生活 在各自单独的道德世界中, 在我的书中 使用的隐喻是我们都被困在“矩阵”中, 或每个道德群体是一个矩阵 一个自愿的幻觉世界。 所以如果你在民主党的阵营中, 一切都引人沮丧 那一边, 他们是老顽固,种族主义者, 是世界上最糟糕的人。 你有所有的事实作为佐证, 但你的邻居生活在 不同的道德矩阵中, 他们住在不同的游戏世界里, 他们看到完全不同的事实。 各方看到的是 对这个国家不同的威胁, 作为中间人 我试图理解双方, 并发现: 双方其实都是对的。 现在很多问题威胁着这个国家, 但每一方都看不到问题的实质。
CA: So, are you saying that we almost need a new type of empathy? Empathy is traditionally framed as: "Oh, I feel your pain. I can put myself in your shoes." And we apply it to the poor, the needy, the suffering. We don't usually apply it to people who we feel as other, or we're disgusted by.
CA:那么,你说的是 我们几乎需要一种新型的共情心? 共情传统上被描述为: “哦,我感觉到你的痛苦 我可以感同身受“ 我们把它用于穷人, 有需要的人,痛苦的人, 我们通常不会用在 我们不关注的人, 或我们厌恶的人身上。
JH: No. That's right.
JH:不错,是这样的。
CA: What would it look like to build that type of empathy?
CA:建立那种类型的共情会是什么样子呢?
JH: Actually, I think ... Empathy is a very, very hot topic in psychology, and it's a very popular word on the left in particular. Empathy is a good thing, and empathy for the preferred classes of victims. So it's important to empathize with the groups that we on the left think are so important. That's easy to do, because you get points for that.
JH:其实,我想... 共情是非常非常 热门的心理话题, 特别在左派 它是一个非常受欢迎的词。 共情是一件好事 同情某种类别的受害者, 所以左派同情 他们认为该同情的对象。 那很容易 因为你目标明确,
But empathy really should get you points if you do it when it's hard to do. And, I think ... You know, we had a long 50-year period of dealing with our race problems and legal discrimination, and that was our top priority for a long time and it still is important. But I think this year, I'm hoping it will make people see that we have an existential threat on our hands. Our left-right divide, I believe, is by far the most important divide we face. We still have issues about race and gender and LGBT, but this is the urgent need of the next 50 years, and things aren't going to get better on their own. So we're going to need to do a lot of institutional reforms, and we could talk about that, but that's like a whole long, wonky conversation. But I think it starts with people realizing that this is a turning point. And yes, we need a new kind of empathy. We need to realize: this is what our country needs, and this is what you need if you don't want to -- Raise your hand if you want to spend the next four years as angry and worried as you've been for the last year -- raise your hand. So if you want to escape from this, read Buddha, read Jesus, read Marcus Aurelius. They have all kinds of great advice for how to drop the fear, reframe things, stop seeing other people as your enemy. There's a lot of guidance in ancient wisdom for this kind of empathy.
但共情真的应该触及到 很难做到的地方。 而且,我想... 我们有着长达50年 处理种族问题 和法律歧视的历史, 很长一段时间以来 它是我们的首要任务 而且现在仍然很重要。 但是今年 我希望人们看到 我们存在一个当务之急: 左右党派的分裂。 我坚信这是迄今为止 我们面对的最严重的分歧, 种族的问题 性别和LGBT问题依然存在, 但这是未来50年迫切需要解决的。 问题不会自行消失 所以我们需要很多体制改革。 我们可以对此进行谈论, 但那将是一个冗长的话题。 但我认为当人们开始意识到这个问题 就是一个转折点。 是的,我们需要一种新的同理心, 我们需要意识到 这是我们国家需要的。 这是你需要的 如果你不想变得更糟。 如果你想花四年的时间, 像去年一样生气和担心,请举手。 如果你想逃离这些, 读佛教,读耶稣 阅读Marcus Aurelius, 他们有各种各样好的建议, 教你如何放下恐惧: 重塑事实, 化敌为友, 古代有很多智慧指导这种同理心。
CA: Here's my last question: Personally, what can people do to help heal?
CA:这是我的最后一个问题: 作为个人,什么可以 帮助人们愈合伤口?
JH: Yeah, it's very hard to just decide to overcome your deepest prejudices. And there's research showing that political prejudices are deeper and stronger than race prejudices in the country now. So I think you have to make an effort -- that's the main thing. Make an effort to actually meet somebody. Everybody has a cousin, a brother-in-law, somebody who's on the other side. So, after this election -- wait a week or two, because it's probably going to feel awful for one of you -- but wait a couple weeks, and then reach out and say you want to talk. And before you do it, read Dale Carnegie, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" --
JH:好的,其实真的很难 克服这种根生蒂固的偏见。 有研究显示,在这个国家, 政治偏见更顽固于 种族偏见, 所以我想你必须努力 ——这是关键。 努力去认识一些人, 每个人都有表兄弟,姐夫或妹夫, 肯定有人在另一方。 在这次选举后 等上一两个星期, 因为其中一方可能会感到尴尬。 但等几个星期后,接触他 说你想说的话。 在你做这之前, 读一下戴尔卡内基的 《如何赢得朋友和影响他人》
(Laughter)
(笑声)
I'm totally serious. You'll learn techniques if you start by acknowledging, if you start by saying, "You know, we don't agree on a lot, but one thing I really respect about you, Uncle Bob," or "... about you conservatives, is ... " And you can find something. If you start with some appreciation, it's like magic. This is one of the main things I've learned that I take into my human relationships. I still make lots of stupid mistakes, but I'm incredibly good at apologizing now, and at acknowledging what somebody was right about. And if you do that, then the conversation goes really well, and it's actually really fun.
我是认真的。 你会学到技巧, 如果你开始承认, 如果你开始说, “你知道我们有很多不同观点 但鲍勃叔叔,有一点我真的很尊重您“ 或“...关于你们保守派,是...” 你可以找到一些有用的东西, 如果一开始你就表达一些赏识 那将好似魔力, 这是我学到的关键东西。 我考虑到人际关系, 我还是经常犯愚蠢的错误, 但我现在学会了道歉, 并承认别人是对的。 如果你能这样做, 谈话就会进行得很好 而且真得会很有趣。
CA: Jon, it's absolutely fascinating speaking with you. It really does feel like the ground that we're on is a ground populated by deep questions of morality and human nature. Your wisdom couldn't be more relevant. Thank you so much for sharing this time with us.
CA:Jon,与你谈天绝对令人振奋, 真正感到我们所处的环境, 是一个充满了道德和人性深层问题的地方。 你的智慧切中要害, 非常感谢和我们一同分享这个话题。
JH: Thanks, Chris.
JH: 谢谢Chris
JH: Thanks, everyone.
JH:谢谢大家
(Applause)
(掌声)