So you probably have the sense, as most people do, that polarization is getting worse in our country, that the divide between the left and the right is as bad as it's been in really any of our lifetimes. But you might also reasonably wonder if research backs up your intuition. And in a nutshell, the answer is sadly yes. In study after study, we find that liberals and conservatives have grown further apart. They increasingly wall themselves off in these ideological silos, consuming different news, talking only to like-minded others and more and more choosing to live in different parts of the country.
你可能会有和大部分人一样的想法, 意识到我们国家的两级分化越来越严重, 左派与右派之间的隔阂 从来没有像现在这么糟过。 但你可能也想过 你的直觉是否被研究证实过。 一言以蔽之,答案可惜是肯定的. 在反复研究后,我们发现 自由派和保守派已渐行渐远。 他们把自己关在意识形态的巨塔中, 看不同的新闻,只跟同类人讲话, 而且越来越倾向住在不同的国家.
And I think that most alarming of all of it is seeing this rising animosity on both sides. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, more and more they just don't like one another. You see it in many different ways. They don't want to befriend one another. They don't want to date one another. If they do, if they find out, they find each other less attractive, and they more and more don't want their children to marry someone who supports the other party, a particularly shocking statistic.
我认为最令人担忧的 是两边兴起的敌意. 自由派与保守派, 民主党与共和党, 他们越来越不喜欢对方。 你在很多方面都能观察到这件事。 他们不想和对方做朋友。 他们不想和对方约会。 即使约了,如果发现彼此立场不同, 就觉得对方不像之前那么有吸引力, 同时也越来越不想让他们的孩子 和另一个党派的人结婚。 这项统计特别令人震惊。
You know, in my lab, the students that I work with, we're talking about some sort of social pattern -- I'm a movie buff, and so I'm often like, what kind of movie are we in here with this pattern? So what kind of movie are we in with political polarization? Well, it could be a disaster movie. It certainly seems like a disaster. Could be a war movie. Also fits. But what I keep thinking is that we're in a zombie apocalypse movie.
你知道吗,在我的实验室, 我与共事的学生 常常会聊一些社会模式 我是个电影痴,我常常这样想, 在这种情况下,我们的哪部电影里有这样的模式? 那么,哪部电影里有政治两级分化的情况? 嗯, 可能是灾难电影。 它确实看起来绝对像一场灾难。 可能是一场战争电影。 也合情合理。 但我认为可能是像《僵尸启示录》这部电影。
(Laughter)
(笑声)
Right? You know the kind. There's people wandering around in packs, not thinking for themselves, seized by this mob mentality trying to spread their disease and destroy society. And you probably think, as I do, that you're the good guy in the zombie apocalypse movie, and all this hate and polarization, it's being propagated by the other people, because we're Brad Pitt, right? Free-thinking, righteous, just trying to hold on to what we hold dear, you know, not foot soldiers in the army of the undead. Not that. Never that.
对吧?你知道那种电影的。 人们成群结对的四处漫游, 不为他们自已着想, 服从的从众心理 试着散播疾病,摧毁社会。 你可能在想,像我一样, 你是《僵尸启示录》中是个好人, 而所有这样的仇恨和极化, 都可能会被其他人所传播着 因为我们是布拉德·皮特,对吧? (在僵尸启示录中饰演 “好人”) 自由思辨,充满正义, 只坚持我们所相信的, 你知道的,不像亡灵战士, 绝对不是。 永远不是。
But here's the thing: what movie do you suppose they think they're in? Right? Well, they absolutely think that they're the good guys in the zombie apocalypse movie. Right? And you'd better believe that they think that they're Brad Pitt and that we, we are the zombies. And who's to say that they're wrong? I think that the truth is that we're all a part of this. And the good side of that is that we can be a part of the solution.
但你想想: 你觉得他们在哪部电影里呢? 对吧? 他们绝对相信他们在电影里 是正义的一方,对吧? 他们觉得自己是布拉德·皮特。 而我们,是那群僵尸。 而谁又能说他们是错的呢? 我觉得事实是 我们都是其中的一部分。 而好的一方面就是我们 都能成为解决方案的一部分。
So what are we going to do? What can we do to chip away at polarization in everyday life? What could we do to connect with and communicate with our political counterparts? Well, these were exactly the questions that I and my colleague, Matt Feinberg, became fascinated with a few years ago, and we started doing research on this topic. And one of the first things that we discovered that I think is really helpful for understanding polarization is to understand that the political divide in our country is undergirded by a deeper moral divide.
所以,我们要做什么呢? 我们在日常生活中要怎麽做 才能逐渐弥合两极化? 我们要怎麽做才能 与我们的政治立场不同的人 建立关系与对话? 这正是我与我的同事麦特.范柏格 在几年前开始热衷的问题, 然后我们开始做研究。 我们最初发现的几件事之一 也是我觉得很重要的 就是我们必须了解 我国的政治分歧来自于 根深蒂固的道德分歧。
So one of the most robust findings in the history of political psychology is this pattern identified by Jon Haidt and Jesse Graham, psychologists, that liberals and conservatives tend to endorse different values to different degrees. So for example, we find that liberals tend to endorse values like equality and fairness and care and protection from harm more than conservatives do. And conservatives tend to endorse values like loyalty, patriotism, respect for authority and moral purity more than liberals do. And Matt and I were thinking that maybe this moral divide might be helpful for understanding how it is that liberals and conservatives talk to one another and why they so often seem to talk past one another when they do.
政治心理学史上 有一项确凿的发现, 由乔恩.海特及杰西.格蓝发现的模型, 这两位是心理学家, 他们发现自由派及保守派 倾向对不同的价值观 有不同程度的支持。 举个例子,我们发现自由派 倾向于认同平等、公平、 关怀和保护免受伤害等价值观, 其程度比保守派更大。 保守派则倾向于忠诚、爱国、 尊重权威及道德纯洁等, 比自由派比例更高。 麦特和我认为或许这是种道德分歧, 这可能会更帮助了解 自由派与保守派之间的对话模式 以及为什么他们在对话时 好像鸡同鸭讲。
So we conducted a study where we recruited liberals to a study where they were supposed to write a persuasive essay that would be compelling to a conservative in support of same-sex marriage. And what we found was that liberals tended to make arguments in terms of the liberal moral values of equality and fairness. So they said things like, "Everyone should have the right to love whoever they choose," and, "They" -- they being gay Americans -- "deserve the same equal rights as other Americans." Overall, we found that 69 percent of liberals invoked one of the more liberal moral values in constructing their essay, and only nine percent invoked one of the more conservative moral values, even though they were supposed to be trying to persuade conservatives. And when we studied conservatives and had them make persuasive arguments in support of making English the official language of the US, a classically conservative political position, we found that they weren't much better at this. 59 percent of them made arguments in terms of one of the more conservative moral values, and just eight percent invoked a liberal moral value, even though they were supposed to be targeting liberals for persuasion.
所以我们做了一项研究, 我们招募自由派来做一项研究 他们应该要写一篇议论文 吸引保守人士支持同性婚姻。 我们发现自由派往往 用自由派的道德价值观, 如平等及公平来论述。 所以他们会说出像这样的话: “每个人都应该有权利 爱他们选择的人。” 而且,“他们” (指同性恋) “应与其他美国人享有 同样的平等权利。” 总体而言,我们发现 69% 的自由派 会引用偏向自由派的道德 价值观来写论文, 只有 9% 会引用 偏向保守派的道德价值观, 即使他们应该要试着说服保守派。 在我们研究保守人士时, 要他们写具有说服力的论据 支持让英语成为美国官方语言时, 一个很经典的保守派政治立场, 他们的表现也不尽人意。 59% 的人论述时, 引用偏向保守派的道德价值观, 只有 8% 引用了 自由派的道德价值观, 尽管他们说服的目标 应该是自由派人士。
Now, you can see right away why we're in trouble here. Right? People's moral values, they're their most deeply held beliefs. People are willing to fight and die for their values. Why are they going to give that up just to agree with you on something that they don't particularly want to agree with you on anyway? If that persuasive appeal that you're making to your Republican uncle means that he doesn't just have to change his view, he's got to change his underlying values, too, that's not going to go very far.
现在,你就了解为什么 我们有这种两极化问题,对吧? 人们的道德价值观 是他们最坚信不移的信念。 人们愿意为了价值观战斗、牺牲性命。 为什么他们要放弃价值观 只为了获得你的认同 更何况他们本来就不是特别同意某些事情? 如果你对资深共和党提出说服的呼吁 意味着他不仅仅是需要改变他的想法, 还要改变他最深层的价值观, 那是不太可能的事情。
So what would work better? Well, we believe it's a technique that we call moral reframing, and we've studied it in a series of experiments. In one of these experiments, we recruited liberals and conservatives to a study where they read one of three essays before having their environmental attitudes surveyed. And the first of these essays was a relatively conventional pro-environmental essay that invoked the liberal values of care and protection from harm. It said things like, "In many important ways we are causing real harm to the places we live in," and, "It is essential that we take steps now to prevent further destruction from being done to our Earth." Another group of participants were assigned to read a really different essay that was designed to tap into the conservative value of moral purity. It was a pro-environmental essay as well, and it said things like, "Keeping our forests, drinking water, and skies pure is of vital importance." "We should regard the pollution of the places we live in to be disgusting." And, "Reducing pollution can help us preserve what is pure and beautiful about the places we live." And then we had a third group that were assigned to read just a nonpolitical essay. It was just a comparison group so we could get a baseline.
所以怎么做才有用? 嗯,我们相信有个方法, 我们称之为道德重塑框架 我们对此用一系列的实验来研究。 在其中一项实验中, 我们招募自由派及保守派 来做一个研究, 他们先读三篇论文中的一篇, 读完之后对他们做环境态度调查。 其中的第一篇论文 是比较常见的支持环保派文章, 运用自由派关怀 及保护不受伤害等价值观。 它会这样说: “从很多重要方面来看, 我们都在对自己生活的地方 造成严重的危害。“ 以及:“我们现在就必须采取行动, 以避免对地球造成进一步的毁坏。“ 另外一组参加者 则被指派阅读一份截然不同的论文, 专为保守派道德纯洁的价值而打造。 它也是一份支持环保的论文, 而且它是这样说的: “让我们的森林、饮水及天空 保持纯淨是非常重要的。” “我们所居住的环境污染 是极其糟糕的。“ “减少环境污染可以帮助和保护 我们所居住的环境的纯净而美丽。” 然后我们指派第三组人 读一份与政治无关的论文。 这只是一个对照组, 让我们有基准线。
And what we found when we surveyed people about their environmental attitudes afterwards, we found that liberals, it didn't matter what essay they read. They tended to have highly pro-environmental attitudes regardless. Liberals are on board for environmental protection. Conservatives, however, were significantly more supportive of progressive environmental policies and environmental protection if they had read the moral purity essay than if they read one of the other two essays. We even found that conservatives who read the moral purity essay were significantly more likely to say that they believed in global warming and were concerned about global warming, even though this essay didn't even mention global warming. That's just a related environmental issue. But that's how robust this moral reframing effect was.
发现当我们调查 在他们读过后对环境的态度, 我们发现对自由派, 给他们读什么论文不重要。 无论如何他们都倾向支持环境态度。 自由派一直都在支持环保。 然而,保守派人士 会更支持激进的环境政策 及环境保护, 如果之前让他们读的 是道德纯洁的论文, 效果会比另外两篇更好。 我们甚至发现读过 道德纯洁短论的保守派, 更有可能说他们相信全球变暖 及担心全球暖化, 即使论文中根本没有提到全球暖化。 那只是相关的环保问题。 可见道德重新框架的效应。
And we've studied this on a whole slew of different political issues. So if you want to move conservatives on issues like same-sex marriage or national health insurance, it helps to tie these liberal political issues to conservative values like patriotism and moral purity. And we studied it the other way, too. If you want to move liberals to the right on conservative policy issues like military spending and making English the official language of the US, you're going to be more persuasive if you tie those conservative policy issues to liberal moral values like equality and fairness.
我们已对一系列不同的政治议题做过同样的研究 所以如果你想促进保守人士 更支持同性婚姻或全民健保等议题 把这些自由派政治议题与保守派价值观, 如爱国或道德纯洁联系起来会更有帮助。 我们对另一边也做过同样的研究。 如果你想让自由派倾右 支持保守派政治议题, 如军费及让英语成为美国的官方语言, 你将会更具说服力, 只要你把这些保守政治议题 与自由派道德价值观相联系 如平等及公平连在一起。
All these studies have the same clear message: if you want to persuade someone on some policy, it's helpful to connect that policy to their underlying moral values. And when you say it like that it seems really obvious. Right? Like, why did we come here tonight? Why --
这些研究都显示出同样的明确信息: 如果你想说服某人支持某项政策, 把该项政策与某人的基本道德价值 连在一起会有帮助。 这样说好像 非常简单明了是吗? 那我们今天晚上还来这里做什么? 为什么呢?
(Laughter)
(笑声)
It's incredibly intuitive. And even though it is, it's something we really struggle to do. You know, it turns out that when we go to persuade somebody on a political issue, we talk like we're speaking into a mirror. We don't persuade so much as we rehearse our own reasons for why we believe some sort of political position. We kept saying when we were designing these reframed moral arguments, "Empathy and respect, empathy and respect." If you can tap into that, you can connect and you might be able to persuade somebody in this country.
这个概念很容易被直观理解。 即便如此,这真的很难做到。 你知道,事实是当我们 想说服某人某项政治议题时, 就好像我们在对着镜子讲话。 即便排练我们的理由 我们还说服不了那么多人 只说自己相信某项政治立场。 我们一直在说要设计道德重塑框架的论述, “同理心及尊重, 同理心及尊重。” 如果你能记住这点, 你就能连接价值观 或许这样你就能说服这个国家一些人。
So thinking again about what movie we're in, maybe I got carried away before. Maybe it's not a zombie apocalypse movie. Maybe instead it's a buddy cop movie.
所以再想一下 我们正在演出哪部电影, 可能我说的感同身受. 可能不是《僵尸启示录》类的片子 可能比较像警察搭档片。
(Laughter)
(笑声)
Just roll with it, just go with it please.
再忍一下,再撑一下就好。
(Laughter)
(笑声)
You know the kind: there's a white cop and a black cop, or maybe a messy cop and an organized cop. Whatever it is, they don't get along because of this difference. But in the end, when they have to come together and they cooperate, the solidarity that they feel, it's greater because of that gulf that they had to cross. Right? And remember that in these movies, it's usually worst in the second act when our leads are further apart than ever before. And so maybe that's where we are in this country, late in the second act of a buddy cop movie --
你知道有种电影,通常有个 白人警察和黑人警察, 或者一个粗心大意的警察 和一个一丝不苟的警察。 不管什么组合,他们都处不好, 因为两者之间的差异。 但到了最后他们必须一起合作时, 让两者感到的团结力量更大, 变得更好的原因是必须跨越鸿沟,对吧? 要记得在这些电影里, 通常转折前的情况会很糟, 主角完全水火不容。 或许这正是我们国家现在的写照。 稍后在警探搭档片的转折处
(Laughter)
(笑声)
torn apart but about to come back together. It sounds good, but if we want it to happen, I think the responsibility is going to start with us.
被撕裂成两半, 但就快要弥合在一起了。 说的好听, 但是如果我们真的想让它实现, 我想责任就从我们开始。
So this is my call to you: let's put this country back together. Let's do it despite the politicians and the media and Facebook and Twitter and Congressional redistricting and all of it, all the things that divide us. Let's do it because it's right. And let's do it because this hate and contempt that flows through all of us every day makes us ugly and it corrupts us, and it threatens the very fabric of our society. We owe it to one another and our country to reach out and try to connect. We can't afford to hate them any longer, and we can't afford to let them hate us either. Empathy and respect. Empathy and respect. If you think about it, it's the very least that we owe our fellow citizens.
所以这是我对大家的呼吁: 让我们使这个国家再团结起来。 不管政治人物 媒体、脸书、推特 及选区重划 包括所有那些分裂我们的东西。 我们开始做正确的事情。 因为这仇恨和蔑视 每天在我们之间流窜着, 让我们面目狰狞,腐蚀着我们, 威胁着我们的社会结构。 我们亏欠彼此与这个国家 试着去沟通及连结。 我们没有时间再仇视别人了, 也没有时间让别人仇视我们了 共情与尊重。 共情与尊重。 如果你仔细想想, 这是我们亏欠同胞的。
Thank you.
谢谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)