未登录,请登录后再发表信息
最新评论 (0)
播放视频

靠事实未必能赢

Facts Don't Win Fights: Here’s How to Cut Through Confirmation Bias

我们大多数人认为 信息是说服别人相信我们提供的事实的最好方式
So most of us think that information is the best way to convince people of our truth,
实际上并不是这样 我们所见总是如此
and in fact it doesn’t work that well.We see that all the time.
以气候变化为例 有大量的数据表明气候变化是人为造成的
We see it with climate change, where there’s tons of data suggesting that climate change
但是大约50%的人不同意这个观点
is man-made but about 50 percent of the population doesn’t believe it, or with people arguing
就像人们为在总统就职典礼上有多少人争论一样
about things like how many people were in the presidential inauguration.
因此 我们有事实 但是人们决定他们想听什么事实 想采用什么事实
So we have facts but people decide which facts they want to listen to, which facts they want
来改变他们的观点 以及他们想无视什么事实
to take and change their opinions, and which they want to disregard.
出现这种现象的原因之一是 当某些东西不符合人们的信念时
And one of the reasons for this is when something doesn’t conform to what I already believe,
人们倾向做的是要么无视它 要么把它合理化
what people tend to do is either disregard it or rationalize it away; because information
因为这些信息没有考虑人类的本质需求 即情感 欲望
doesn’t take into account what makes us human, which is our emotions, our desires,
动机 以往的信念
our motives and our prior beliefs.
比如 在一项研究中 我的同事和我试图看看我们是否可以
So for example, in one study my colleagues and I tried it to see whether we could use
使用科学改变人们关于气候变化的观念
science to change people’s opinions about climate change.
我们做的第一件事就是问人们 你相信人为的气候变化吗
The first thing we did was ask people, “Do you believe in man-made climate change?
你支持巴黎气候协议吗
Do you support the Paris Agreement?”
我们基于他们的回答 把他们分为非常相信和不太相信的两组人
And based on their answers we divided them into the strong believers and the weak believers.
然后我们给他们信息
And then we gave them information.
对一些人 我们说 科学家已经重新对数据进行了评估 现在得出结论
For some people we said that scientists have reevaluated the data and now conclude that
情况比他们之前预想的更加糟糕
things are actually much worse than they thought before, that the temperature would rise by
温度将会上升大约七度到十度
about seven degrees to ten degrees.
对于另外一些人 我们说 科学家已经重新对数据进行了分析 他们现在认为
For some people we said the scientists have reevaluated the data and they now believe
实际上情况并没有他们想象的那么糟糕 正相反 它更好
that actually this situation is not as bad as they thought, it’s much better, and the
温度上升幅度非常小
rise in temperature would be quite small.
我们发现 那些并不相信气候变化的人 当他们听到
And what we found is that people who did not believe in climate change, when they heard
科学家说”实际情况并不是很糟”的时候 他们更加相信自己原来的信念
that the scientists are saying, “Actually it’s not that bad,” they changed their
因此 他们在原来的方向上更加极端
beliefs even more in that direction, so they became more extremist in that direction, but
但是当他们听到 科学家认为情况更加糟糕的时候 他们没有改变自己的信念太多
when they heard that the scientists think it’s much worse they didn’t nudge.
对于一直认为气候变化是人为造成的的那些人来说
And the people who already believe that climate change is man-made, when they heard that scientists
当他们听到科学家说 情况比之前认为的更糟时 他们更加趋向于自己原来的信念
are saying things are much worse than they said before, they moved more in that direction,
所以他们变得更加两极分化 但是当他们听到科学家说情况并不是很糟时
so they became more polarized, but when they heard scientists are saying it’s not that
他们并没有改变原来的信念很多
bad they didn’t nudge much.
因此 我们给人们信息 结果导致两极化
So we gave people information and as a result it caused polarization, it didn’t cause
它并没有使人们的观念走向一致
people to come together.
所以 问题是在我们的大脑内部发生了什么导致了这种情况呢
So the question is, what’s happening inside our brain that causes this?
在一项研究中 我的同事和我扫描了两个相互作用的人的大脑活动
And in one study my colleagues and I scanned brain activity of two people who were interacting,
我们发现当这两个人对我们给他们的问题有相同意见时
and what we found was when those two people agreed on a question that we gave them, the
大脑会对另外一个人说的话和他们给出的细节进行编码
brain was really encoding what the other person was saying, the details that they gave; but
但是当两个人意见不一致时 大脑看起来仿佛是关闭的 而不是对其他人说的话进行编码
when the two people disagreed it looked metaphorically as if the brain was switching off and not
结果 当双方达成共识时 他们变得更加自信
encoding what the other person was saying.And as a result when the two agreed they became
但是当他们不同意彼此的观点时 他们对自己的观点
even more confident, but when they disagreed there wasn’t as much of a change in their
并没有那么大的改变
confidence in their own view.
Kahan和耶鲁大学的同事所展示的是
What has been shown by Kahan and colleagues from Yale University is that the more intelligent
你越聪明 你就越有可能改变这个数据
you are the more likely you are to change data at will.
所以 他们做的是 首先对实验中的参与者进行分析 并解决一些数学问题
So what they did is they first gave participants in their experiment analytical and math questions
然后会给他们枪支管制的数据:枪支管制实际上会减少暴力吗?
to solve, and then they gave them data about gun control: is gun control actually reducing violence?
他们发现 更”聪明”的人实际上更有可能按照其意愿扭曲数据
And they found that more “intelligent” people actually were more likely to twist
使其符合他们已经相信的东西
data at will to make it conform to what they already believed.So it seems that people are
所以人们似乎没有利用自己的智慧挖掘真相
using their intelligence not necessarily to find the truth, but to take in the information
而是改变所接受的信息 以使其符合他们的信念
and change it to conform to what they already believe.
因此 这表明 不顾别人立场就给出信息 可能会适得其反
So that suggests that just giving people information without considering first where they’re
但是我们并不总是需要违背某人的信念 以改变他们的行为
coming from may backfire at us, but we don’t always need to go against someone’s conviction
让我给你举一个例子
in order to change their behavior, and let me give you an example.
这是一项在加州大学洛杉矶分校进行的研究 他们想要做的是
So this is a study that was conducted at UCLA where what they wanted to do is convince parents
说服父母给孩子接种疫苗
to vaccinate their kids.
一些父母并不想给孩子接种疫苗 因为他们害怕孩子患自闭症
And some of the parents didn’t want to vaccinate their kids because they were afraid of the
所以他们有两种方法 首先他们说
link with autism.So they had two approaches, first they said, “Well the link with autism
“与自闭症的联系实际上并不真实 这里所有的数据表明 接种疫苗与自闭症之间
is actually not real, here’s all the data suggesting there isn’t a link between vaccines
没有任何联系”
and autism.”
但是这种方法效果并不好
And it didn’t really work that well.
但是他们使用了另外一种方式
But instead they used another approach.
因此 他们没有这么做 他们采用了另一种方法 让我们不要谈论自闭症
So instead of going that way they used another approach, which was: let’s not talk about
我们不一定需要谈论自闭症
autism, we don’t necessarily need to talk about autism to convince you to vaccinate
以说服你给孩子接种疫苗
your kids.
他们说 “看 这些疫苗保护孩子免于致命的疾病和麻疹”
Instead they said, “Well look, these vaccines protect kids from deadly diseases, from the
然后他们给父母展示了麻疹的图片
measles,” and they showed them pictures of what the measles are.
因为在这个关于疫苗的争论中 人们实际上忘记了疫苗是用来做什么的
Because in this argument about vaccines people actually forgot what the vaccines are for,
它们保护我们远离什么
what are they protecting us from.
他们强调 并没有必要继续讨论自闭症
And they highlighted that and didn’t necessarily go on to discuss autism.
这有一个更好的处理方式
That had a much better outcome.
父母更有可能说 “是的 我们会给孩子接种疫苗的”
The parents were much more likely to say, “Yes we are going to vaccinate our kids.”
所以这节课讲的是 寻找双方共同的动机
So the lesson here is that we need to find the common motive.
在这个例子下 共同的动机是孩子的健康
The common motive in this case was the health of the children, not necessarily going back
没有必要回到双方争论不休的事情上去
to the thing that they were arguing about, that they disagreed about.

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述

本视频通过一些例子,告诉我们说服别人的关键是找到共同的动机,而不要回到彼此不同意的事情上去。简言之,就是求同存异。

听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

73

审核员

NL

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyioZODhKbE

相关推荐