ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Robb Willer - Social psychologist
Robb Willer's political research has investigated various topics, including economic inequality, racial prejudice, masculine overcompensation and Americans' views of climate change.

Why you should listen

Robb Willer is a professor of sociology, psychology and organizational behavior at Stanford University. He studies the role of morality in politics. His research shows how moral values, typically a source of ideological division, can also be used to bring people together. His political research has investigated various topics, including economic inequality, racial prejudice, masculine overcompensation and Americans' views of climate change.

Willer has won numerous awards for his teaching and research, including the Golden Apple Teaching Award, the only award given by UC-Berkeley’s student body. Willer's class, "Self and Society," was the highest enrollment class at UC-Berkeley. His consulting clients have included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, the Last Resort Exoneration Project and the Department of Justice.

Willer's writing has appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post, including his op-eds "The Secret to Political Persuasion" and "Is the Environment a Moral Cause?"

Willer received a Ph.D from Cornell University and a BA from the University of Iowa. Before becoming a professor, he worked as a dishwasher, construction worker, mover, line cook and union organizer.

More profile about the speaker
Robb Willer | Speaker | TED.com
TEDxMarin

Robb Willer: How to have better political conversations

洛博.威樂: 如何有更好的政治對話

Filmed:
2,681,111 views

洛博.威樂研究團結和分裂我們的力量。身為社會心理學家,他研究如何善用道德價值觀──非常典型的分裂來源──也能使其成為讓眾人團結在一起的要素。威樂分享令人信服的見解,告訴大家如何彌合意識形態的鴻溝,並提供直覺性建議,以便在談論政治時更有說服力。
- Social psychologist
Robb Willer's political research has investigated various topics, including economic inequality, racial prejudice, masculine overcompensation and Americans' views of climate change. Full bio

Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.

00:12
So you probably大概 have the sense,
as most people do,
0
760
3056
你大概像大家一樣,
00:15
that polarization極化
is getting得到 worse更差 in our country國家,
1
3840
3656
意識到這個國家愈來愈兩極化,
00:19
that the divide劃分
between之間 the left and the right
2
7520
3456
左派與右派之間的隔閡,
00:23
is as bad as it's been
in really any of our lifetimes壽命.
3
11000
3536
這輩子從來沒有像現在這麼糟過。
00:26
But you might威力 also reasonably合理 wonder奇蹟
if research研究 backs up your intuition直覺.
4
14560
5280
你也可能理性地想過
你的直覺是否有研究實證。
00:32
And in a nutshell簡而言之,
the answer回答 is sadly可悲的是 yes.
5
20560
4680
一言以蔽之,這個答案
很不幸的是「有」。
00:38
In study研究 after study研究, we find
6
26920
2016
一個又一個的研究顯示
00:40
that liberals自由主義者 and conservatives保守派
have grown長大的 further進一步 apart距離.
7
28960
3680
自由派與保守派早已漸行漸遠。
00:45
They increasingly日益 wall themselves他們自己 off
in these ideological思想 silos筒倉,
8
33440
4776
他們愈來愈把自己關在
意識形態的巨塔中,
00:50
consuming消費 different不同 news新聞,
talking only to like-minded志同道合 others其他
9
38240
4136
看不同的新聞,只跟同類的人講話,
00:54
and more and more choosing選擇
to live生活 in different不同 parts部分 of the country國家.
10
42400
3240
而且愈來愈傾向
選擇住在不同的地方。
00:58
And I think that
most alarming驚人 of all of it
11
46720
3216
我認為最令人擔心的
01:01
is seeing眼看 this rising升起
animosity敵意 on both sides雙方.
12
49960
3800
是兩邊興起的敵意。
01:06
Liberals自由主義者 and conservatives保守派,
13
54440
1656
自由派與保守派,
01:08
Democrats民主黨 and Republicans共和黨人,
14
56120
1896
民主黨與共和黨,
01:10
more and more they just
don't like one another另一個.
15
58040
3120
他們就是愈來愈不喜歡對方。
01:14
You see it in many許多 different不同 ways方法.
16
62320
2016
你在很多方面都能觀察到這件事。
01:16
They don't want to befriend幫扶 one another另一個.
They don't want to date日期 one another另一個.
17
64360
3656
他們不要跟對方做朋友。
他們不要跟對方約會。
即使約了,如果發現彼此立場不同,
就覺得對方不像之前那麼有吸引力,
01:20
If they do, if they find out,
they find each other less attractive有吸引力,
18
68040
3296
01:23
and they more and more don't want
their children孩子 to marry結婚 someone有人
19
71360
3096
他們愈來愈不想讓自己的孩子
01:26
who supports支持 the other party派對,
20
74480
1696
與支持另一黨的人結婚,
01:28
a particularly尤其 shocking觸目驚心 statistic統計.
21
76200
1760
這項統計特別令人震驚。
01:31
You know, in my lab實驗室,
the students學生們 that I work with,
22
79640
2816
你知道嗎,在我的實驗室,
我與共事的學生群
01:34
we're talking about
some sort分類 of social社會 pattern模式 --
23
82480
3456
常常會聊一些社會模式──
01:37
I'm a movie電影 buff淺黃色, and so I'm often經常 like,
24
85960
3536
我是個電影癡,我常常這樣想,
01:41
what kind of movie電影 are we in here
with this pattern模式?
25
89520
2960
這樣的模式下我們在演哪齣電影?
01:45
So what kind of movie電影 are we in
with political政治 polarization極化?
26
93080
3280
政治兩極化下我們在演哪齣戲?
01:49
Well, it could be a disaster災害 movie電影.
27
97080
2720
嗯,可能是災難片。
01:52
It certainly當然 seems似乎 like a disaster災害.
28
100880
1680
確實很像災難片。
01:54
Could be a war戰爭 movie電影.
29
102920
2000
可能是戰爭片。
01:57
Also fits適合.
30
105640
1200
也很像。
01:59
But what I keep thinking思維 is that
we're in a zombie殭屍 apocalypse啟示 movie電影.
31
107480
3816
但是我一直都認為我們是活在
殭屍啟示錄這類的電影裡。
02:03
(Laughter笑聲)
32
111320
1456
(笑聲)
02:04
Right? You know the kind.
33
112800
2296
對吧?你知道那種電影。
02:07
There's people wandering飄零 around in packs,
34
115120
2416
成群結隊的人四處晃盪,
02:09
not thinking思維 for themselves他們自己,
35
117560
1776
完全身不由己,
02:11
seized by this mob暴民 mentality心理
36
119360
1616
被暴民心態奪心勾魂,
02:13
trying to spread傳播 their disease疾病
and destroy破壞 society社會.
37
121000
3240
要傳播他們的疾病摧毀社會。
02:17
And you probably大概 think, as I do,
38
125480
2336
你大概跟我一樣會想
02:19
that you're the good guy
in the zombie殭屍 apocalypse啟示 movie電影,
39
127840
3456
你是殭屍片裡的好人,
02:23
and all this hate討厭 and polarization極化,
it's being存在 propagated傳播 by the other people,
40
131320
3696
所有的仇恨啊兩極化啊,
都是另一邊的人搞起來的。
02:27
because we're Brad布拉德 Pitt皮特, right?
41
135040
1880
因為我們都是布萊德·彼特,對吧?
02:29
Free-thinking自由思考, righteous正義,
42
137760
2896
自由思考、正義凜然,
02:32
just trying to hold保持 on
to what we hold保持 dear,
43
140680
2296
試圖堅守我們珍愛的,
02:35
you know, not foot腳丫子 soldiers士兵
in the army軍隊 of the undead亡靈.
44
143000
3576
你知道,不要當殭屍的走路工。
02:38
Not that.
45
146600
1456
才不要。
02:40
Never that.
46
148080
1200
絕對不要。
02:42
But here's這裡的 the thing:
47
150080
1496
問題是:
02:43
what movie電影 do you suppose假設
they think they're in?
48
151600
2720
你想他們覺得自己
是活在什麼電影裡呢?
02:47
Right?
49
155480
1216
對吧?
02:48
Well, they absolutely絕對 think
that they're the good guys
50
156720
2536
他們當然認為自己
才是殭屍片裡的好人,對吧?
02:51
in the zombie殭屍 apocalypse啟示 movie電影. Right?
51
159280
1856
你最好相信他們認為
自己才是布萊德·彼特,
02:53
And you'd better believe
that they think that they're Brad布拉德 Pitt皮特
52
161160
2976
而我們,我們才是殭屍。
02:56
and that we, we are the zombies殭屍.
53
164160
2120
03:01
And who's誰是 to say that they're wrong錯誤?
54
169120
2360
誰能說他們是錯的?
03:04
I think that the truth真相 is
that we're all a part部分 of this.
55
172440
3120
我認為真相是我們都身在其中。
03:08
And the good side of that
is that we can be a part部分 of the solution.
56
176240
3160
好的一面就是我們也可以
成為解決方案的一部分。
03:12
So what are we going to do?
57
180280
2000
那我們要怎麼辦?
03:15
What can we do to chip芯片 away
at polarization極化 in everyday每天 life?
58
183320
4256
我們在日常生活中要怎麼做
才能逐漸消彌兩極化?
03:19
What could we do to connect with
and communicate通信 with
59
187600
3816
我們要怎麼做才能
與我們政治上的死對頭
建立關係、對話?
03:23
our political政治 counterparts同行?
60
191440
1720
03:25
Well, these were exactly究竟 the questions問題
that I and my colleague同事, Matt馬特 Feinberg范伯格,
61
193720
4136
這正是我與我的同事麥特.范柏格
03:29
became成為 fascinated入迷 with a few少數 years年份 ago,
62
197880
1858
在幾年前開始熱衷的問題,
03:31
and we started開始
doing research研究 on this topic話題.
63
199762
2200
我們開始研究這個題目。
03:34
And one of the first things
that we discovered發現
64
202920
2976
我們最先發現的幾件事裡,
03:37
that I think is really helpful有幫助
for understanding理解 polarization極化
65
205920
3456
有一樣我認為對瞭解
兩極化非常有幫助,
03:41
is to understand理解
66
209400
1216
就是我們必須了解
03:42
that the political政治 divide劃分 in our country國家
is undergirdedundergirded by a deeper更深 moral道德 divide劃分.
67
210640
4416
我國的政治分歧來自於
根深蒂固的道德分歧。
03:47
So one of the most robust強大的 findings發現
in the history歷史 of political政治 psychology心理學
68
215080
4776
政治心理學史上
有一項強有力的發現,
03:51
is this pattern模式 identified確定
by Jon喬恩 Haidt海特 and Jesse傑西 Graham格雷厄姆,
69
219880
3696
由強海特及傑西格藍發現的模式,
03:55
psychologists心理學家,
70
223600
1216
這兩位是心理學家,
03:56
that liberals自由主義者 and conservatives保守派
tend趨向 to endorse擁護 different不同 values
71
224840
4016
他們發現自由派及保守派
傾向對不同的價值觀
04:00
to different不同 degrees.
72
228880
1200
有不同程度的支持。
04:02
So for example, we find that liberals自由主義者
tend趨向 to endorse擁護 values like equality平等
73
230600
5496
舉個例子,我們發現自由派
對於認同平等、公平、
04:08
and fairness公平 and care關心
and protection保護 from harm危害
74
236120
3656
關懷和保護免受傷害等價值觀,
04:11
more than conservatives保守派 do.
75
239800
2136
其程度比保守派大。
04:13
And conservatives保守派 tend趨向 to endorse擁護
values like loyalty忠誠, patriotism愛國主義,
76
241960
5256
保守派則對忠誠、愛國、
04:19
respect尊重 for authority權威 and moral道德 purity純度
77
247240
3456
尊重權威及道德純潔等,
04:22
more than liberals自由主義者 do.
78
250720
2080
比自由派更加支持。
04:25
And Matt馬特 and I were thinking思維
that maybe this moral道德 divide劃分
79
253920
4056
麥特和我認為或許這種道德分歧,
04:30
might威力 be helpful有幫助
for understanding理解 how it is
80
258000
3096
可能對了解
自由派與保守派的對話模式有幫助,
04:33
that liberals自由主義者 and conservatives保守派
talk to one another另一個
81
261120
2416
以及為什麼他們在對話時
常常好像雞同鴨講。
04:35
and why they so often經常
seem似乎 to talk past過去 one another另一個
82
263560
2416
04:38
when they do.
83
266000
1216
04:39
So we conducted進行 a study研究
84
267240
1976
所以我們做了一項研究,
04:41
where we recruited應徵 liberals自由主義者 to a study研究
85
269240
3096
我們招募自由派來做一項研究,
04:44
where they were supposed應該
to write a persuasive說服力 essay文章
86
272360
2456
他們應該要寫一份說服性短論,
04:46
that would be compelling引人注目 to a conservative保守
in support支持 of same-sex同性 marriage婚姻.
87
274840
4440
吸引保守人士支持同性婚姻。
04:51
And what we found發現 was that liberals自由主義者
tended往往 to make arguments參數
88
279800
3256
我們發現自由派往往
04:55
in terms條款 of the liberal自由主義的 moral道德 values
of equality平等 and fairness公平.
89
283080
4176
用自由派的道德價值觀,
如平等及公平來論述。
04:59
So they said things like,
90
287280
1736
所以他們會說出像這樣的話:
05:01
"Everyone大家 should have the right
to love whoever they choose選擇,"
91
289040
3376
「每個人都應該有權利
愛他們選擇的人。」
05:04
and, "They" -- they being存在 gay同性戀者 Americans美國人 --
92
292440
2576
而且「他們」──指美國同性戀──
05:07
"deserve值得 the same相同 equal等於 rights權利
as other Americans美國人."
93
295040
2760
「應與其他美國人享有
同樣的平等權利。」
05:10
Overall總體, we found發現
that 69 percent百分 of liberals自由主義者
94
298360
3216
總體而言,我們發現 69% 的自由派
05:13
invoked調用 one of the more liberal自由主義的
moral道德 values in constructing建設 their essay文章,
95
301600
5416
會引用偏向自由派的道德
價值觀來寫短論,
05:19
and only nine percent百分 invoked調用
one of the more conservative保守 moral道德 values,
96
307040
3696
只有 9% 會引用
偏向保守派的道德價值觀,
05:22
even though雖然 they were supposed應該
to be trying to persuade說服 conservatives保守派.
97
310760
3416
即使他們應該要試著說服保守派。
05:26
And when we studied研究 conservatives保守派
and had them make persuasive說服力 arguments參數
98
314200
4296
在我們研究保守人士,
要他們寫說服論據
05:30
in support支持 of making製造 English英語
the official官方 language語言 of the US,
99
318520
2896
支持讓英語成為美國的國語時,
05:33
a classically經典 conservative保守
political政治 position位置,
100
321440
2536
這是很經典的保守派政治立場,
05:36
we found發現 that they weren't
much better at this.
101
324000
2216
我們發現他們在這點的
表現也沒有比較好。
05:38
59 percent百分 of them made製作 arguments參數
102
326240
1616
59% 的人論述時,
05:39
in terms條款 of one of the more
conservative保守 moral道德 values,
103
327880
2696
引用偏向保守派的道德價值觀,
05:42
and just eight percent百分
invoked調用 a liberal自由主義的 moral道德 value,
104
330600
2496
只有 8% 引用一項
自由派的道德價值觀,
05:45
even though雖然 they were supposed應該
to be targeting針對 liberals自由主義者 for persuasion勸說.
105
333120
3360
儘管他們說服的目標
應該是自由派人士。
05:49
Now, you can see right away
why we're in trouble麻煩 here. Right?
106
337480
4040
現在,你馬上就了解為什麼
我們有這種麻煩,對吧?
05:54
People's人們 moral道德 values,
they're their most deeply held保持 beliefs信仰.
107
342280
3496
人的道德價值觀
是他們最堅信不移的信念。
05:57
People are willing願意
to fight鬥爭 and die for their values.
108
345800
3400
人願意為了價值觀戰鬥、犧牲性命。
06:01
Why are they going to give that up
just to agree同意 with you
109
349720
2696
他們為什麼要放棄價值觀,
只為了與你認同
06:04
on something that they don't particularly尤其
want to agree同意 with you on anyway無論如何?
110
352440
3536
他們本來就不同意的東西?
06:08
If that persuasive說服力 appeal上訴 that
you're making製造 to your Republican共和黨人 uncle叔叔
111
356000
3256
如果你對共和黨叔叔
提出的那番呼籲,
06:11
means手段 that he doesn't
just have to change更改 his view視圖,
112
359280
2416
不但要讓他改變觀點,
06:13
he's got to change更改
his underlying底層 values, too,
113
361720
2166
還要改變他最基本的價值觀,
06:15
that's not going to go very far.
114
363910
1560
大概沒有什麼效果。
06:18
So what would work better?
115
366080
1320
所以怎麼做才有用?
06:20
Well, we believe it's a technique技術
that we call moral道德 reframing重新定義,
116
368200
4296
嗯,我們相信有個方法,
我們稱之為道德重新框架,
06:24
and we've我們已經 studied研究 it
in a series系列 of experiments實驗.
117
372520
2616
我們對此用一系列的實驗來研究。
06:27
In one of these experiments實驗,
118
375160
1496
在其中一項實驗中,
06:28
we recruited應徵 liberals自由主義者
and conservatives保守派 to a study研究
119
376680
3136
我們招募自由派及保守派
來做一個研究,
06:31
where they read one of three essays隨筆
120
379840
2296
他們先讀三篇短論中的一篇,
06:34
before having their environmental環境的
attitudes態度 surveyed調查.
121
382160
3040
讀完之後對他們做環境態度調查。
06:37
And the first of these essays隨筆
122
385640
1496
第一篇短論
06:39
was a relatively相對 conventional常規
pro-environmental親環境 essay文章
123
387160
3376
是比較常見的親環保派文章,
06:42
that invoked調用 the liberal自由主義的 values
of care關心 and protection保護 from harm危害.
124
390560
4016
運用自由派關懷
及保護不受傷害等價值觀。
06:46
It said things like,
"In many許多 important重要 ways方法
125
394600
2536
它會像這樣說:
「從很多重要方面來看,
06:49
we are causing造成 real真實 harm危害
to the places地方 we live生活 in,"
126
397160
2816
我們都在對生活的地方
造成真正的危害。」
06:52
and, "It is essential必要
that we take steps腳步 now
127
400000
2816
以及:「我們現在就必須採取步驟,
06:54
to prevent避免 further進一步 destruction毀壞
from being存在 doneDONE to our Earth地球."
128
402840
2920
以避免對地球造成進一步的毀壞。」
06:59
Another另一個 group of participants參與者
129
407120
1416
另外一組參加者
07:00
were assigned分配 to read
a really different不同 essay文章
130
408560
2216
則被指派閱讀一份截然不同的短論,
07:02
that was designed設計 to tap龍頭 into
the conservative保守 value of moral道德 purity純度.
131
410800
4440
專為保守派道德純潔的價值而打造。
07:08
It was a pro-environmental親環境 essay文章 as well,
132
416190
1986
它也是一份親環保的短論,
07:10
and it said things like,
133
418200
1496
而且它是這樣說的:
07:11
"Keeping保持 our forests森林, drinking water,
and skies天空 pure is of vital重要 importance重要性."
134
419720
4240
「讓我們的森林、飲水及天空
保持純淨是非常重要的。」
07:17
"We should regard看待 the pollution污染
135
425000
1496
「我們應該視
07:18
of the places地方 we live生活 in
to be disgusting討厭."
136
426520
2040
汙染的居所為可憎之處。」
07:21
And, "Reducing減少 pollution污染
can help us preserve保留
137
429160
2096
以及:「減少污染可以幫助我們保護
07:23
what is pure and beautiful美麗
about the places地方 we live生活."
138
431280
3160
我們純潔而美麗的居所。」
07:27
And then we had a third第三 group
139
435880
1416
然後我們指派第三組人
07:29
that were assigned分配
to read just a nonpolitical非政治 essay文章.
140
437320
2496
讀一份與政治無關的短論。
這只是一個對照組,
讓我們有基準線。
07:31
It was just a comparison對照 group
so we could get a baseline底線.
141
439840
2736
我們發現當我們調查
07:34
And what we found發現 when we surveyed調查 people
142
442600
1953
他們讀過之後的環境態度,
07:36
about their environmental環境的
attitudes態度 afterwards之後,
143
444577
2199
我們發現對自由派,
給他們讀什麼短論不重要。
07:38
we found發現 that liberals自由主義者,
it didn't matter what essay文章 they read.
144
446800
2936
無論如何他們都傾向
高度親環境態度。
07:41
They tended往往 to have highly高度
pro-environmental親環境 attitudes態度 regardless而不管.
145
449760
3096
自由派支持環保。
07:44
Liberals自由主義者 are on board
for environmental環境的 protection保護.
146
452880
2416
然而保守派人士
07:47
Conservatives保守黨, however然而,
147
455320
1216
會顯著更支持先進的環境政策
07:48
were significantly顯著 more supportive支持
of progressive進步 environmental環境的 policies政策
148
456560
4416
07:53
and environmental環境的 protection保護
149
461000
1536
及環境保護,
07:54
if they had read the moral道德 purity純度 essay文章
150
462560
2056
如果之前讓他們讀的
是道德純潔的短論,
07:56
than if they read
one of the other two essays隨筆.
151
464640
2400
效果會比另外兩篇更好。
08:00
We even found發現 that conservatives保守派
who read the moral道德 purity純度 essay文章
152
468160
3096
我們甚至發現讀過
道德純潔短論的保守派,
08:03
were significantly顯著 more likely容易 to say
that they believed相信 in global全球 warming變暖
153
471280
3496
更有可能說他們相信全球暖化
及擔心全球暖化,
08:06
and were concerned關心 about global全球 warming變暖,
154
474800
1905
即使短論中根本沒有提到全球暖化。
08:08
even though雖然 this essay文章
didn't even mention提到 global全球 warming變暖.
155
476729
2727
那只是相關的環保議題。
08:11
That's just a related有關 environmental環境的 issue問題.
156
479480
2456
08:13
But that's how robust強大的
this moral道德 reframing重新定義 effect影響 was.
157
481960
3080
由此可知道德重新框架
效應有多強大。
08:17
And we've我們已經 studied研究 this on a whole整個 slew
of different不同 political政治 issues問題.
158
485960
3736
我們已對眾多不同的
政治議題做過同樣的研究。
08:21
So if you want to move移動 conservatives保守派
159
489720
3736
所以如果你想促使保守人士
08:25
on issues問題 like same-sex同性 marriage婚姻
or national國民 health健康 insurance保險,
160
493480
3096
更支持同性婚姻或全民健保等議題,
08:28
it helps幫助 to tie領帶 these liberal自由主義的
political政治 issues問題 to conservative保守 values
161
496600
3456
把這些自由派政治議題
與保守派價值觀,
08:32
like patriotism愛國主義 and moral道德 purity純度.
162
500080
2800
如愛國或道德純潔等
連起來會有幫助。
08:35
And we studied研究 it the other way, too.
163
503800
2096
我們對另一邊也做過同樣的研究。
08:37
If you want to move移動 liberals自由主義者
to the right on conservative保守 policy政策 issues問題
164
505920
3816
如果你想讓自由派傾右
支持保守派政治議題,
08:41
like military軍事 spending開支 and making製造 English英語
the official官方 language語言 of the US,
165
509760
4616
如軍費及英文國語化,
08:46
you're going to be more persuasive說服力
166
514400
1656
你會更具說服力,
08:48
if you tie領帶 those conservative保守
policy政策 issues問題 to liberal自由主義的 moral道德 values
167
516080
3336
只要你把這些保守政治議題
與自由派道德價值觀,
08:51
like equality平等 and fairness公平.
168
519440
1880
如平等及公平連在一起。
08:54
All these studies學習
have the same相同 clear明確 message信息:
169
522640
2856
這些研究都顯示出同樣的明確信息:
08:57
if you want to persuade說服
someone有人 on some policy政策,
170
525520
2936
如果你想說服某人支持某項政策,
09:00
it's helpful有幫助 to connect that policy政策
to their underlying底層 moral道德 values.
171
528480
3840
把該項政策與某人的基本道德價值
連結在一起會有幫助。
09:05
And when you say it like that
172
533520
2176
你可能會說
09:07
it seems似乎 really obvious明顯. Right?
173
535720
1496
這非常顯而易見,不是嗎?
09:09
Like, why did we come here tonight今晚?
174
537240
1776
那我們今天晚上還來做什麼?
09:11
Why --
175
539040
1216
為什麼──
09:12
(Laughter笑聲)
176
540280
1536
(笑聲)
09:13
It's incredibly令人難以置信 intuitive直觀的.
177
541840
2040
這靠直覺就知道了。
09:17
And even though雖然 it is,
it's something we really struggle鬥爭 to do.
178
545400
3296
即便如此,這真的很難做到。
09:20
You know, it turns out that when we go
to persuade說服 somebody on a political政治 issue問題,
179
548720
3856
你知道嗎,事實是當我們
想說服某人某項政治議題時,
09:24
we talk like we're speaking請講 into a mirror鏡子.
180
552600
2736
我們好像在對著鏡子講話。
09:27
We don't persuade說服 so much
as we rehearse排練 our own擁有 reasons原因
181
555360
4376
我們根本說服不了別人,
如果只重複論述自己的理由,
09:31
for why we believe
some sort分類 of political政治 position位置.
182
559760
2880
自己相信某項政治立場的原因。
09:35
We kept不停 saying when we were designing設計
these reframed重新定義 moral道德 arguments參數,
183
563400
4416
我們一直在說要設計出
道德重新框架的論述,
09:39
"Empathy同情 and respect尊重,
empathy同情 and respect尊重."
184
567840
2640
你要有同理心及尊重,
同理心及尊重。
09:43
If you can tap龍頭 into that,
185
571040
1456
如果你能帶進這點,
09:44
you can connect
186
572520
1656
你就能產生關係,
09:46
and you might威力 be able能夠 to persuade說服
somebody in this country國家.
187
574200
2800
你或許就能在這個國家說服某人。
09:49
So thinking思維 again
188
577560
2416
所以再想一下
09:52
about what movie電影 we're in,
189
580000
2280
我們是在演哪齣電影,
09:55
maybe I got carried攜帶的 away before.
190
583200
1576
可能我之前說的太誇張了。
09:56
Maybe it's not a zombie殭屍 apocalypse啟示 movie電影.
191
584800
1960
可能不是殭屍啟示錄這類的片子。
09:59
Maybe instead代替 it's a buddy夥伴 cop警察 movie電影.
192
587520
1920
可能比較像警察搭檔片。
10:02
(Laughter笑聲)
193
590040
2016
(笑聲)
10:04
Just roll with it, just go with it please.
194
592080
2016
再忍一下,再撐一下就好。
10:06
(Laughter笑聲)
195
594120
1440
(笑聲)
10:08
You know the kind:
there's a white白色 cop警察 and a black黑色 cop警察,
196
596480
2696
你知道這種片,通常有個
白人警察和黑人警察,
10:11
or maybe a messy cop警察 and an organized有組織的 cop警察.
197
599200
2136
或者一個亂七八糟
和一個一絲不苟的警察。
10:13
Whatever隨你 it is, they don't get along沿
198
601360
2056
不管什麼組合,他們都處不好,
10:15
because of this difference區別.
199
603440
1286
因為兩者之間的差別太大。
10:17
But in the end結束, when they have
to come together一起 and they cooperate合作,
200
605520
3216
但到了最後他們必須一起合作時,
10:20
the solidarity團結 that they feel,
201
608760
1936
兩者感到的團結力量更大,
10:22
it's greater更大 because of that gulf海灣
that they had to cross交叉. Right?
202
610720
3640
因為必須跨越鴻溝,對吧?
10:27
And remember記得 that in these movies電影,
203
615280
1976
要記得在這種電影裡,
10:29
it's usually平時 worst最差 in the second第二 act法案
204
617280
2896
通常第二幕的情況會更糟,
10:32
when our leads引線 are further進一步 apart距離
than ever before.
205
620200
2400
主角完全水火不容。
10:35
And so maybe that's
where we are in this country國家,
206
623440
2336
或許這正是我們國家現在的寫照。
10:37
late晚了 in the second第二 act法案
of a buddy夥伴 cop警察 movie電影 --
207
625800
2176
警探搭檔片第二幕尾聲──
10:40
(Laughter笑聲)
208
628000
2576
(笑聲)
10:42
torn撕裂 apart距離 but about
to come back together一起.
209
630600
3080
被撕裂成兩半,
但就快要彌合在一起了。
10:47
It sounds聲音 good,
210
635400
1656
說的好聽,
10:49
but if we want it to happen發生,
211
637080
1856
但是如果我們真的想讓它實現,
10:50
I think the responsibility責任
is going to start開始 with us.
212
638960
2720
我想責任就從我們開始。
10:54
So this is my call to you:
213
642520
2160
所以這是我對大家的呼籲:
10:57
let's put this country國家 back together一起.
214
645480
2000
讓我們把這個國家再結合起來。
11:01
Let's do it despite儘管 the politicians政治家
215
649080
3056
就做吧!不管政治人物、
11:04
and the media媒體 and FacebookFacebook的 and Twitter推特
216
652160
2856
媒體、臉書、推特
11:07
and Congressional國會 redistricting重劃
217
655040
1536
及選區重劃
11:08
and all of it,
all the things that divide劃分 us.
218
656600
2720
那些東西如何分裂我們。
11:12
Let's do it because it's right.
219
660360
2240
就做吧!因為這是該做的事。
11:15
And let's do it
because this hate討厭 and contempt鄙視
220
663920
4416
就做吧!因為這仇恨和蔑視
11:20
that flows流動 through通過 all of us every一切 day
221
668360
2160
每天在我們之間流竄著,
11:23
makes品牌 us ugly醜陋 and it corrupts腐敗 us,
222
671400
3176
讓我們面目猙獰,腐蝕著我們,
11:26
and it threatens威脅
the very fabric of our society社會.
223
674600
3320
威脅的也正是我們的社會結構。
11:31
We owe it to one another另一個 and our country國家
224
679960
2656
我們應該給彼此及這個國家
11:34
to reach達到 out and try to connect.
225
682640
2160
伸出友誼之手與嘗試溝通的機會。
11:38
We can't afford給予 to hate討厭 them any longer,
226
686000
3160
我們沒有本錢再仇視別人,
11:42
and we can't afford給予
to let them hate討厭 us either.
227
690200
2200
也沒有本錢讓別人仇視我們。
11:45
Empathy同情 and respect尊重.
228
693880
1360
同理心與尊重。
11:47
Empathy同情 and respect尊重.
229
695880
1240
同理心與尊重。
11:49
If you think about it, it's the very least最小
that we owe our fellow同伴 citizens公民.
230
697920
3800
如果你仔細想想,
至少這是我們欠同胞的。
11:54
Thank you.
231
702400
1216
謝謝。
11:55
(Applause掌聲)
232
703640
4685
(掌聲)
Translated by Regina Chu
Reviewed by SF Huang

▲Back to top

ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Robb Willer - Social psychologist
Robb Willer's political research has investigated various topics, including economic inequality, racial prejudice, masculine overcompensation and Americans' views of climate change.

Why you should listen

Robb Willer is a professor of sociology, psychology and organizational behavior at Stanford University. He studies the role of morality in politics. His research shows how moral values, typically a source of ideological division, can also be used to bring people together. His political research has investigated various topics, including economic inequality, racial prejudice, masculine overcompensation and Americans' views of climate change.

Willer has won numerous awards for his teaching and research, including the Golden Apple Teaching Award, the only award given by UC-Berkeley’s student body. Willer's class, "Self and Society," was the highest enrollment class at UC-Berkeley. His consulting clients have included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, the Last Resort Exoneration Project and the Department of Justice.

Willer's writing has appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post, including his op-eds "The Secret to Political Persuasion" and "Is the Environment a Moral Cause?"

Willer received a Ph.D from Cornell University and a BA from the University of Iowa. Before becoming a professor, he worked as a dishwasher, construction worker, mover, line cook and union organizer.

More profile about the speaker
Robb Willer | Speaker | TED.com