Chris Anderson: So, Jon, this feels scary.
克里斯·安德森: 所以,強,這感覺蠻可怕的。
Jonathan Haidt: Yeah.
強納森海特:是啊。
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?
克:目前世界感覺像是在一種 我們很久沒有經歷過的狀態。 人們不只是以我們熟悉的方式 不認同左派右派的政治分裂, 還有更深的歧異在發生中。 這到底是怎麼回事, 而我們又是怎麼走到這一步?
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.
強:這次是不一樣, 好像有大災難要降臨的感覺。 皮尤研究中心的調查研究顯示, 我們對另一方的感覺不只是… 我們不只是不喜歡他們; 我們很強烈地不喜歡他們。 而且我們認為他們是對國家的威脅。 這些數字不斷在上升, 雙方的數字都已經高過 50%。 人們很恐懼, 因為這個感覺和以往不同; 比以前更強烈。
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?
當我在看任何一種社會難題時, 我都是應用道德心理學的 三項基本原則, 我認為在這裡也能有幫助。 在思考政治問題時, 你一定要謹記的第一件事是 我們都有部落性格。 我們靠部落意識演化至今。 關於人類的社會天性, 最簡單且最偉大的名言 是一句貝多因諺語: 「我對抗我的兄弟; 我和我的兄弟一起 對抗我們的表兄弟; 我和我的兄弟和表兄弟們 一起對抗陌生人。」 那個部落意識使我們 創造出大型社會, 使我們結合在一起來與其他人抗爭。 它使我們脫離叢林、脫離小團體, 但那意味著我們永遠會有衝突。 你需要探討的問題是: 我們社會的哪些面向 使這些衝突更激烈, 哪些能使衝突平靜下來?
CA: That's a very dark proverb. You're saying that that's actually baked into most people's mental wiring at some level?
克:那是個非常黑暗的諺語。 你的意思是,實際上那是大部份人 天生就或多或少具有的心理面? 強:喔,絕對是。這只是 人類社會認知的一個基本面向。
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.
但,我們也能 非常和平地住在一起, 而且我們發明了各種 有趣的活動,例如玩戰爭遊戲… 我是指運動、政治… 我們以這些方式來 體現我們的部落天性, 而不會真正傷到任何人。 我們也很擅長貿易、 探索、認識新人。 所以你要知道我們的部落意識 是會上下起伏的, 而不是我們注定會一直彼此對抗, 永遠不會有世界和平。
CA: The size of that tribe can shrink or expand.
克:部落的大小可以縮小或擴大。
JH: Right.
強:是的。
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.
克:我們所認定的「我們」、 以及我們所認定的 「其他人」或「他們」, 大小都可能會改變。 有些人相信,這個過程 可能無限期地持續下去。
JH: That's right.
強:沒錯。
CA: And we were indeed expanding the sense of tribe for a while.
克:我們的確持續在擴展這個部落。
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.
強:所以,我認為, 我們應該要去了解 可能有種新的左右派區別。 我們大家目前承襲的左右派觀念 來自勞方對抗資方, 勞動階級和馬克思主義。 但我認為我們現在越來越會看到 所有西方民主的分化, 一端是觀念止於國家的人, 比較具有地方觀念的人… 我沒有任何負面的意思… 更有紮根觀念的人, 他們關心他們的鎮、 他們的社區、他們的國家。 另一端則是反地方觀念的人, 每當我搞混時,我就想 約翰藍儂的歌「想像」: 「想像沒有國家, 沒有殺戮或戰死的理由。」 所以這些人想要比較全球性的治理, 他們不喜歡分國家、 他們不喜歡邊界。 你在歐洲也到處都能看到。 有個名字叫莎士比亞的 偉大的比喻家 十年前在英國寫作, 他有個比喻: 「我們把開合橋向上拉 或是向下放?」 那時英國人在那點的比例 是 52 對 48。 美國對這點也是分化的。
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.
克:所以,我們這些 和披頭四一起長大的人, 有著嬉皮哲學, 夢想著比較連結的世界, 覺得很理想,且認為「怎麼 可能有人會把它做負面解讀?」 你說的是,其實, 現今有數百萬人 覺得那不只是愚蠢; 還是危險且錯誤的, 並且他們對此感到恐懼。
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.
強:我認為…特別是在歐洲, 但這裡也是一樣… 重要議題是移民問題。 我認為在此我們得要非常小心 去看待關於多樣化 與移民的社會科學。 任何事一旦被政治化, 一旦變成是左派喜歡、而右派… 甚至社會科學家對此 也無法清楚地思考。 多樣化在很多方面是好事。 它顯然創造了更多的創新, 美國經濟因為它而大大成長。 多樣性和移民帶來很多好處。 但,全球主義者看不到, 他們也不想看到的是, 種族多樣性會削減 社會資本和互相的信任。
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.
羅勃·普南有一個非常重要的研究, 他是《獨自打保齡球》的作者, 這研究探究了社會資本資料庫。 基本上,越多人認為他們是相同的, 他們越信任彼此, 他們就會成為財富重新分配的國家。 斯堪的納維亞國家如此美好 是因為它們一直保有著 同質的小國家傳統, 使它們持續進步成為福利國家, 擁有一組進步的左傾價值觀,吶喊著: 「把開合橋放下來! 世界是個很棒的地方。 敘利亞的人民在受苦, 我們必須歡迎他們進來。」 那是件很美好的事。 但,如果今年夏天我在瑞典, 如果這說法在瑞典 是相當政治正確的, 而且他們無法談論不利面, 結果你就會帶進很多人。 那將會削減社會資本, 就很難仍是福利國家, 他們可能最後會和美國一樣, 成為種族分化、 明顯可見的種族分化的社會。 所以談論這些讓人很不舒服。 但我認為,特別是歐洲, 我們也是,要正視這個議題。 但我認為,特別是歐洲,我們也是, 要正視這個議題。
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.
克:你是說,那些理性的人, 自認為不是種族主義者, 而是有道德、正直的人, 有理由可以說,人類就是太不同了; 以致於若把太不同的人混合在一起, 我們可能要面對不知道 人們會做出什麼的危險。
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.
強:是的,但我可以 把它說得更容易明白。 分化不一定與種族有關。 它與文化有關。 有位名為凱倫·史坦納得政治科學家 做了一項很棒的研究。 這個研究指出當人們覺得 我們全都團結一致, 我們都一樣, 就會有很多人本來傾向於 專制獨裁主義。 當這些人覺得當我們的社會 與道德秩序似乎不會受到威脅時, 他們不見得是種族主義者。 但如果你實驗性地先讓他們 認為我們逐漸在分化, 人們越來越不同, 那時他們會比較有種族主義、 仇視同性戀,要把異類趕出去。 所以在這部分會有獨裁主義的反應。 那些堅持藍儂主義路線的左派── 約翰·藍儂路線── 會做出造成獨裁主義反應的事。
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.
我們在美國的另類右派看到這現象。 我們在英國看到, 我們在歐洲各處都看到這個現象。 但比較正面的部份是, 我認為本土派份子, 或國家主義者,其實是對的。 如果你強調我們的文化相似性, 種族其實沒那麼重要。 所以用社會同化的方式處理移民, 能消除很多這些問題。 所以用社會同化的方式處理移民, 能消除很多這些問題。 如果你想要有個慷慨的福利國家, 你必須強調我們都是一樣的。
CA: OK, so rising immigration and fears about that are one of the causes of the current divide. What are other causes?
克:好,所以目前分化的成因之一 是越來越多移民, 以及人們對此狀況的恐懼。 其他成因是什麼?
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!"
強:道德心理學的下一個原則 是人們的直覺會先發生, 然後策略性推理才跟進。 你可能聽過「動機性推理」 或「確認偏誤」這些詞。 有個很有趣的研究在探討 我們的高度智慧以及言語能力 可能演化成不是協助我們找到真相, 而是協助我們操弄彼此、 捍衛我們的名聲… 我們非常非常擅長爲自己辯護。 當你把群體利益納入考量, 那就不只是我一人, 而是我的團隊對抗你的團隊, 在評估證明你那一方錯的證據時, 我們就是無法接受。 這就是為什麼 在政治爭執中你贏不了。 如果你在辯論某事, 你不可能以理由和證據說服對方, 因為推理不是這樣運作的。 現在,我們有互聯網、 有 Google: 「我聽說歐巴馬在肯亞出生, 讓我 Google 一下。 天啊!點閱率有千萬!那就是真的!」
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.
克:所以對很多人來說, 這是不愉快的驚喜。 社交媒體常常被 科技樂觀主義者給塑造成 一股能讓人們團結的偉大動力。 但它也造成了一些未預期的反效果。
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.
強:是的。這就是為什麼我很喜歡 以陰陽和左右來 分析人類天性的觀點── 每一方都對某些事有正確的看法, 但他們對其他事是盲目的。 所以一般來說左派相信人性本善: 團結、拆除圍牆,一切就會很好; 一般來說,右派── 社會保守派、非自由主義者, 相信人們很貪婪、性衝動、自私, 我們需要規定,我們需要限制。 所以,是的,如果你拆了所有圍牆, 讓全世界的人能夠溝通, 你會得到很多色情片和種族主義。
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?
克:請爲我們澄清一下。 這些人類天性… 本來就一直存在。 到底是哪些改變 加深了這個分化的感覺?
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.
強:這裡有六到十條 不同的脈絡匯集在一起, 我就只談其中幾條。 在美國, 其實應該說在美國與歐洲, 最重大的一條就是第二次大戰。 約翰·漢里克與其他人 做了個有趣的研究, 研究指出,如果你的國家正在打仗, 特別是在你年輕的時候, 在三十年後讓你做公共困境測驗 或是囚徒困境測驗, 你會比較合作。 因為部落的天性,如果你… 在二次大戰時, 我的父母還是青少年, 他們會出去尋找廢棄鋁製物, 以協助戰爭。 大家同心協力。 這些人長大成人後, 他們在事業上及政府機關內 取得領導級的位置。 他們非常擅長妥協與合作。 到了 90 年代他們都退休了。 90 年代末期,我們就只有 嬰兒潮時代出生的人, 他們的年輕時光 都花在自己國家的內部抗爭。 那是在 1986 年及那以後。 所以,失去二戰大戰世代, 即「最偉大的世代」的損失 非常大。 這是其一。
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.
在美國,另一條脈絡是兩黨派的淨化。 他們以前是開放的共和黨員 及保守的民主黨員。 所以在二十世紀中期, 美國是真的兩黨化的。 但由於各種因素讓一切開始變動, 到了 90 年代,我們有了 淨化後的自由黨派及保守黨派。 所以,現在,兩黨派的人很不同。 我們雙方真的不希望 我們的孩子彼此結婚, 在 60 年代時,這沒那麼重要。 所以,這是黨派的淨化。 第三條脈絡是互聯網,如我前面所說, 對於事後推論及妖魔化而言, 互聯網是最驚人的刺激物。
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.
克:互聯網現況讓人十分不安。 我在 Twitter 上做了一個 關於選舉的快速研究, 看到兩個推特訊息並列。 一個是針對一張種族歧視塗鴉的圖片: 「這讓人厭惡! 這是#川普帶給這個國家的醜陋面。」 下一則則是: 「騙子希拉蕊專屬網頁。 讓人厭惡!」 這個「讓人厭惡」的想法 讓我覺得憂慮。 因為你可以爭論或是不同意某事, 你可以對某人生氣。 我聽到你說,厭惡會把狀況 帶到更深的層級。
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.
強:對的。厭惡是不同的。 生氣…你知道,我有孩子。 他們每天會吵架十次, 他們每天愛彼此三十次。 你只是來來回回, 你生氣了,你不氣了; 你生氣了,你不氣了; 但厭惡不同。 厭惡會把對方描繪成 低於人類的、如怪物的、 畸形的、道德上畸形的。 厭惡就像…難以抹除的墨水。 約翰·葛特曼做了一個 關於婚姻治療的研究, 如果你看面孔…如果夫妻中 有一人展現出厭惡或輕視, 你就可以預言他們很快會離婚; 但如果他們呈現的是生氣, 就無法預言任何事, 因為如果你能好好處理生氣, 它其實是好的。
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.
這個選舉是不同的。 川普本人就常常使用 「厭惡」這個字, 他對細菌很敏感,所以對他而言, 厭惡確實很重要, 那是他獨有的東西… 但當我們越將彼此妖魔化, 再度透過摩尼教的世界觀, 主張世界是善惡對戰的世界觀。 隨著這種觀點加速散播, 很可能我們不只說他們錯了 或是不喜歡他們, 我們會說他們很邪惡、 他們是惡魔、 他們讓人厭惡、他們令人作嘔。 接著,我們不要與他們 扯上任何關係。 那就是為什麼我認為會看見… 比如,現在在校園中, 我們看到更多人強烈地 將一些人趕出校園, 不讓他們說話,讓他們遠離。 恐怕這整個年輕人的世代, 如果他們對政治的認識 牽涉到許多的厭惡, 當他們長大時, 他們不會想要涉入政治。
CA: So how do we deal with that? Disgust. How do you defuse disgust?
克:所以我們要如何處理厭惡? 你要如何消除厭惡感?
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.
強:你無法用講理的方式處理。 我認為… 我研究厭惡很多年了, 我常常會去思考情緒。 我認為,厭惡的相反其實就是愛。 愛就是,像… 厭惡是關閉、設界線。 愛則是融化牆壁。 所以,個人關係,我認為, 可能是我們擁有最強大的手段。 你可能會對一群人感到厭惡, 但接著你遇到了某個特別的人, 你真正發現到他們其實很美好。 那會一點一滴改變你的類別。 悲劇是,美國人過去在鎮上 是更混雜在一起的, 左右派或政治上混雜在一起。 現在,那變成了很大的道德分化, 有很多證據顯示我們越來越去 靠近在政治上相近的人。 很難找到在另一邊的人。 所以他們在那邊,他們很遙遠。 越來越難去認識他們。
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?
克:對某人,或是對美國人、 對一般的人,你會如何說? 我們應該了解彼此的什麼 才能協助我們重新思考一下 這個「厭惡」的直覺?
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.
強:好的… 真正要牢記在心的重點是, 政治科學家艾倫·亞伯拉莫維茲 有一項研究 顯示美國民主越來越被 所謂的「消極的黨派關係」所掌控。 那表示,你會想, 好,這裡有個候選人, 你喜歡這個候選人, 你投給這個候選人。 但隨著負面廣告出現, 還有社交媒體、各種其他的趨勢, 漸漸地,選舉進行的方式 變成每一方都試著讓對方 看起來很糟糕、差勁, 糟到讓你會理所當然投給我的人。
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.
所以隨著我們投票 越來越是反對另一方, 而非支持我方, 你得牢記在心,如果人們是左派, 他們會想:「我以前認為共和黨很差, 現在川普證明了這一點。 現在我可以把 我對川普的看法投射到 每一個共和黨員。」 那不一定是對的。 他們大多對他們的候選人不是很滿意。
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.
這是美國史上最嚴重的 對黨派負面的選舉。 所以你首先要將你對候選人的感受, 從你對那些有選擇的人的感受分開。 接著,你得要了解, 因為我們都住在 不同的道德世界中── 我在書中用的比喻是 我們被困在《駭客任務》的母體中, 或是說,每個道德社群 就是一個母體,一種交感幻覺, 所以如果你身在一個藍色母體中, 一切都非常有說服力,另一邊… 他們是穴居人、種族主義者、 世界上最差的人, 你有一堆事實可以支持這想法。 但你隔壁鄰居 住在不同的道德母體中, 他們住在不同的電玩遊戲中, 他們看見的事實完全不同。 每個人看到對國家的威脅都不同。 而我身在中間試圖了解雙方時, 我發現的是:雙方都是對的。 這個國家面臨許多威脅, 而每一方在本質上 都無法看見所有的威脅。
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.
克:所以你的意思是, 我們說是需要一種新的同理心? 傳統的同理心是這樣的: 「喔,我感受到你的痛。 我能站在你的立場。」 我們把它用在窮人、 有需要的人、受苦的人身上, 我們通常不會用在那些 我們認為是「其他人」的人、 或我們討厭的人身上。 強:沒錯,我們不會。
JH: No. That's right.
克:建立那種同理心 會是什麼樣子的?
CA: What would it look like to build that type of empathy?
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.
強:其實,我認為… 在心理學,同理心是個 非常火紅的主題, 特別是在左派,它是個熱門用詞。 同理心是件好事。 偏好把同理心給予受害者。 因此,重視我們左派認為 非常重要的團體非常重要。 那很容易,因為你這麼做可以得分。
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.
同理心應該是在 很難有同理心的情況下 產生才能夠得分才對。 而我認為… 我們處理種族問題以及合法歧視 已有五十年之久了, 那一直是我們的首要任務, 現在仍然很重要。 但,我認為,今年, 我希望人們能夠看見 我們手上有個關係存在的威脅。 我相信,我們的左右派分化是 到目前為止我們面臨過最重要的分化。 我們仍然有種族、性別、 同性雙性與跨性的議題, 但這是未來五十年的迫切需求, 這些情況不會自己好轉。 所以我們得要做很多的制度改革, 我們可以談那些, 但那會非常冗長而且不容易說清楚。 但我想,我們要從使人們 了解到這是個轉捩點開始。 是的,我們需要一種新的同理心。 我們需要了解: 這是我們的國家需要的, 這是你需要的,如果你不想要… 如果你想要讓接下來四年 和去年一樣生氣和擔心, 請舉起你的手。 如果你想從這當中逃脫, 去讀佛、去讀耶穌、去讀奧里略。 他們有各種很好的建議 教你放下恐懼、 重新組織事物、 別再把其他人視為你的敵人。 對於這種同理心, 古人智慧中有許多教導。
CA: Here's my last question: Personally, what can people do to help heal?
克:我有最後一個問題。 以個人層面來說, 人們能做什麼來協助痊癒?
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" --
強:是的,很難去直接 決定要克服你最深的偏見。 有研究顯示 目前在我們國家中, 政治偏見比種族偏見 更深、更強。 所以我認為,你得付出努力… 這是最主要的。 努力去真正認識別人。 每個人都會有個表兄弟、連襟、 有某個人是在另一方的。 所以,在這個選舉之後… 等一週或兩週, 因為你們當中有一方 可能會感覺糟透了… 等幾週之後, 向對方伸出手,說你想談談。 在你這麼做之前, 先讀讀卡內基的 《如何贏取友誼與影響他人》…
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
我是非常認真的。 你會學到技巧… 如果你用認可來開場, 如果你開場時說: 「你知道,我們很多意見相左, 鮑伯叔叔,但你有一點 是我真的很敬佩的。」 或「…你們保守派有一點 是我真的…」 你就會發現某些事。 如果你用欣賞來開場, 它就像魔法一樣。 這是我主要學到的東西之一, 我把它帶到我的人類關係當中。 我仍然會犯很多愚蠢的錯誤, 但現在我非常擅長道歉、 擅長認可別人對的部份。 如果你那樣做, 對話進行就會非常順利, 其實還挺好玩的。
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.
克:能與您談話真的是非常棒。 真的感覺像是…我們的立基之地 上面有關於道德及 人類天性的深刻問題。 您提供的智慧非常有意義。 非常謝謝您這次能與我們分享。
JH: Thanks, Chris.
強:謝謝,克里斯。
JH: Thanks, everyone.
強:謝謝各位。
(Applause)
(掌聲)