如何與意見不同的人交流？

Research suggests oral, not written, communication works best.

研究表明，與意見不同的人交流的最好方法並非書面表達，而是當面交流。

We’ve all been there: those times you need to argue your point of view to someone who you know disagrees with you. You immediately go to your keyboard and start to type out that 280-character tweet, the Facebook reply, or a paragraphs-long email. Surely the reason, logic, and sheer power of your written words will convince whoever it is who disagrees with you to see your point of view? But new research suggests these written arguments may not be the best approach.

我們都有過這樣的經歷:有時候我們需要和與自己觀點不同的人爭論。這時你會立即打開你的鍵盤，開始輸入280個字符的tweet、Facebook回覆，或者編輯一封冗長的電子郵件。但是難道書面文字的理據、邏輯和不容置疑的力量一定就會說服對方嗎？新的研究表明，這些書面交流可能不是最好的方法。

That research was conducted by Juliana Schroeder, assistant professor of management of organizations at the Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, and her colleagues. In Schroeder’s study of almost 300 people, participants were asked to watch, listen, and read arguments about subjects they agreed or disagreed with, including abortion, music, and war. They were asked to judge the character of the communicator and the quality or veracity of the argument. Schroeder’s team found that the participants who watched or listened to the communicator were less dismissive of their claims than when they read that communicator’s same argument.

加州大學伯克利分校哈斯商學院(Haas School of Business)的管理學助理教授朱莉安娜•施羅德(Juliana Schroeder)和她的同事完成了這份研究。Schroeder對近300人進行調查研究，參與者被要求觀看、聆聽和閱讀他們同意或不同意的話題，包括墮胎、音樂和戰爭。他們被要求判斷髮布者的性格和爭論的質量或真實性。Schroeder的研究小組發現，相比觀看或者聆聽發佈者信息的參與者來說，閱讀文字的參與者更容易對發佈者有牴觸情緒。

Schroeder’s findings have obvious implications for all forums for communication, especially those in the workplace. The idea for her study came from a newspaper article about a politician, she told the Washington Post:

Schroeder的發現適用於所有的交流場合，尤其是在工作場所。她在《華盛頓郵報》中表示，她的研究靈感來自一篇關於一位政治家的報紙文章：

One of us read a speech excerpt that was printed in a newspaper from a politician with whom he strongly disagreed. The next week, he heard the exact same speech clip playing on a radio station. He was shocked by how different his reaction was toward the politician when he read the excerpt compared to when he heard it. When he read the statement, the politician seemed idiotic, but when he heard it spoken, the politician actually sounded reasonable.

我們中的一個人讀了一篇報紙上的演講節選，他強烈反對這一觀點。下個星期，他聽到了在之聲播放的完全相同的講話剪輯。但他在兩種情境下的反應是很不一樣的，連他自己都對這種差別感到驚訝。當他讀到這一聲明時，這位政治家看起來很白癡，但當他聽到這些句子時，這位政客實際上說的很有道理。

Schroeder’s research also found the participants who listened to or watched the communicators talk were also less likely to dehumanize them–a phenomenon where we subconsciously belittle or demonize the cognitive capabilities and moral attributes of people who hold views other than our own. So whether it’s convincing a stranger that #MeToo matters, discussing  politics with a friend, or explaining to other board members why your vision of the company is the right one, here are three tips to communicate effectively to give your argument the chance of being truly understood.

Schroeder的研究還發現，聽過或觀看過發佈者談話的參與者也很少強烈反對這些發佈者。在這種現象中，我們下意識地貶低或妖魔化那些持有不同觀點的人的認知能力和道德品質。所以，不管是說服陌生人，還是和朋友討論政治，或是向董事會成員解釋你對公司的看法是正確的，這裏有三條建議可以幫助你有效地溝通，讓你的論點有機會被真正理解。

We live in a world of digital, primarily text-based communication. While that is great for convenience (you can read a message when you want to), Schroeder’s work suggests that’s horrible for times when you need to convince people who disagree with you, as people are more prone to dehumanize you when you communicate in writing.

我們生活在一個數字化的世界，主要是基於文本的交流。雖然這很方便(你可以隨時讀取信息)，但是Schroeder的研究表明，當你需要說服那些不同意你的人的時候，這是很可怕的，因爲當你用書面交流的時候，人們傾向於將你物化。

“The intuitive tendency to dehumanize opponents stems, in part, from the fact that we’re unable to directly experience another person’s mind compared to our own,” Schroeder told me. “Instead, we have to work backwards from another person’s known belief (say, ‘Gun control is bad’) to his or her unknown thinking or reasoning. A seemingly nonsensical belief, the inference process goes, comes from a nonsensical mind.”

Schroeder表示:“在某種程度上，我們傾向於物化對方的根本原因是無法直接體會另一個人的思想。”相反，我們必須從另一個人的已知信念(比如，“槍支控制是不好的”)中逆向而行，以瞭解他或她的未知想法或推理。看似荒謬的信念或者推理過程，來自於荒謬的思想。

Of course, sometimes we have no option but to communicate via text. If this is the case, it’s imperative to be extra attentive to your choice of words and phrases. Using non-emotive, fact-based, to-the-point arguments are the best way to combat the reader’s natural penchant to dehumanize you.

當然，有時我們別無選擇，只能通過文字進行交流。如果是這樣的話，你就必須格外注意你對單詞和短語的選擇。使用非情緒化的、基於事實的論點是對抗讀者這種物化傾向的最好方法。

Ideally, you’ll want to always choose to convey your argument in person if you can. “Hearing a message from a political [or other] opponent can humanize the opponent, compared to reading the same message,” said Schroeder via email. “One reason for this seems to be that variance in communicators’ natural paralinguistic cues in their voices (e.g., tone) can convey their thoughtfulness.”

理想情況下，你會想要親自去表達你的觀點。Schroeder通過電子郵件說:“看到政治（或其他）對手的言論會下意識地物化對方，但聽到這些言論可以避免這一點。”“這其中的一個原因似乎是，溝通者在他們的聲音(例如，語調)中自然流露的語言暗示能夠傳達他們的思想。”

In the workplace, speaking to someone in person often involves nothing more than walking a few doors down to their office. And that’s exactly what you should do if you need to convince that boss or colleague of why your blueprint for the company or project is the right one.

在工作場所，和一個人面對面交談通常只需要你多走幾步、推開那扇門。如果你需要說服老闆或同事贊同你的企業或項目規劃，你就應該這麼做。

But even if you don’t work in the same building as your colleague, or live in the same state or country as one of your Facebook friends you’re arguing with about gun control, you’re not out of luck. It’s now easier than ever to communicate with people by voice or video call. So before sending an email or posting a message, open Skype or Facebook Messenger for an audio or video call so the recipient of your message can hear the variance and paralinguistic cues in your voice.

但是，即使你和你的同事不在同一棟樓裏工作，或者和你的Facebook朋友爭論槍支控制問題，你們住在同一個州或同一個國家，但距離遙遠，這時候也有解決辦法。現在用語音或視頻電話與人交流比以往任何時候都容易。因此，在發送電子郵件或發佈信息之前，打開Skype或Facebook Messenger進行音頻或視頻通話，這樣你的信息接收者就能聽到你聲音中的細微起伏和副語言暗示。

Only as a last resort should you try to communicate with someone who you disagree with over social media. Twitter’s limited text allowance and social media users’ short attention spans make arguing your point an uphill battle.

社交媒體交流只是你與人爭論的最後選擇， Twitter的文字限制和社交媒體用戶的短暫注意力，會讓你的爭論成爲一場艱苦的戰鬥。