鑽石舞台

Three planes, 25 hours, 10,000 miles. My dad gets off a flight from Australia with one thing in mind. And it's not a snack or a shower or a nap. It's November 2016. And Dad is here to talk to Americans about the election. Now, Dad's a news fiend. But for him, this is not just red or blue, swing states or party platforms. He has some really specific intentions.

我父親換乘三架飛機，歷經25小時，飛行了一萬英里。他從澳大利亞起飛的航班下來時只想着一件事。他沒想着去洗澡、吃飯或者睡覺。那時正好是在2016年11月。我爸此行的目的是跟美國人聊大選。我爸現在是個新聞迷。但對他來說，他不僅僅是在討論紅州、藍州、搖擺州或黨派綱領。他想從交流中獲得更多。

He wants to listen, be heard and understand. And over two weeks, he has hundreds of conversations with Americans from New Hampshire to Miami. Some of them are tough conversations, complete differences of opinions, wildly different worldviews, radically opposite life experiences. But in all of those interactions, Dad walks away with a big smile on his face and so does the other person.

他希望能夠互相傾聽，並且互相理解。兩周以來，從新罕布什爾到邁阿密，他跟不同州的美國人，進行了幾百場談話。但是他和有些人聊得並不愉快，他們的觀點完全不同，因為他們有着截然不同的世界觀和完全不一樣的生活經歷。但在每一次的交談後，我父親和對方都會笑容滿面地離開。

You can see one of them here. And in those interactions, he's having a version of what it seems like we have less of, but want more of, a constructive conversation. We have more ways than ever to connect.And yet, politically, ideologically, it feels like we are further and further apart. We tell pollsters that we want politicians who are open-minded.

你可以看到，圖中就是其中一個。我父親在聊天的時候，使用了一種特殊的交流方式，這是我們很多人缺乏的，叫做「建設性談話」。我們比以往有着更多的溝通方式。但在政治和意識形態上，我們卻越來越相去甚遠。在進行民意調查中，我們表示希望政治家們思維開放。

And yet when they change their point of view, we say that they lacked conviction. For us, when we're confronted with information that challenges an existing worldview, our tendency is not to open up, it's to double down. We even have a term for it in social psychology. It's called belief perseverance.

但是一旦他們改變了觀點，我們又說他們缺乏信念。對我們來說，當我們所接收到的信息和我們現有的世界觀相衝突時，我們不會傾向於開放自己的思維，而是會更堅定原有觀念。在社會心理學中，有個專業術語，將這種現象稱為「信念固着」。

And boy, do some people's beliefs seem to persevere.I'm no stranger to tough conversations. I got my start in what I now call productive disagreement in high school debate. I even went on to win the World Schools Debate Championship three times. I've been in a lot of arguments, is what I'm saying.

有些人的信念真的很頑強。我很熟悉這種艱難的交談。在高中的辯論賽中，我開始使用一種新的辯論方式，我稱它為「有效爭論」法。後來我甚至贏過三次世界學校辯論錦標賽。就像我說的，我經歷了很多次辯論。

But it took watching my dad on the streets of the US to understand that we need to figure out how we go into conversations. Not looking for the victory, but the progress. And so since November 2016, that's what I've been doing. Working with governments, foundations, corporations, families, to uncover the tools and techniques that allow us to talk when it feels like the divide is unbridgeable.

但看到我父親在美國街頭的談話之後我才意識到，我們應該仔細想想，我們到底是如何展開談話的。不是為了爭贏，而是為了取得進展。這就是從2016年11月以來，我一直在做的事。我跟政府、基金會、企業以及家庭合作，尋找能夠化解那些無法調和的矛盾的工具和技巧。

And constructive conversations that really move the dialogue forward have these same three essential features. First, at least one party in the conversation is willing to choose curiosity over clash. They're open to the idea that the discussion is a climbing wall, not a cage fight. That they'll make progress over time and are able to anchor all of that in purpose of the discussion.

能夠讓對話進行下去的「建設性談話」有三個重要的基本特徵。第一，至少談話中的一方，更願意表現好奇心，而不是產生衝突。其次，他們願意接受這場談話更像是「攀岩運動」，而不是「籠中搏鬥」。隨着時間的推移，他們會取得進展，並能夠在討論的目的中錨定所有這些。

For someone trained in formal debate, it is so tempting to run headlong at the disagreement. In fact, we call that clash and in formal argumentation, it's a punishable offense if there's not enough of it. But I've noticed, you've probably noticed, too, that in real life that tends to make people shut down, not just from the conversation, but even from the relationship.

進行過正式辯論訓練的人很容易把有據的辯論，直接變成衝突。事實上，在正式的辯論中，沒有提供有效證據的發言，是會受到懲罰的。但是我想我們都注意到了，在實際生活中，談話中的衝突，人們更傾向於封閉自己，這不止影響到談話，甚至會影響到彼此的關係。

It's actually one of the causes of unfriending, online and off. So instead, you might consider a technique made popular by the Hollywood producer Brian Grazer, the curiosity conversation. And the whole point of a curiosity conversation is to understand the other person's perspective, to see what's on their side of the fence.

無論在網絡還是現實生活中，這都是影響彼此關係的原因之一。所以我們應該如何做呢？好萊塢製片人布萊恩·格雷澤，提出了一種方法，叫做「好奇交談」。好奇交談的主要目的，就是儘可能地傾聽交談方的觀點，理解對方到底在表達什麼。

And so the next time that someone says something you instinctively disagree with, that you react violently to,you only need one sentence and one question. I never thought about it exactly that way before. What can you share that would help me see what you see? What's remarkable about curiosity conversations is that the people you are curious about tend to become curious about you.

所以下次交談的時候，如果你聽到某些跟你意見不同的觀點，當你本能地想立即反駁時，你只需要這樣說：「我從沒以這個角度考慮過這個問題」。「你是否可以分享更多，讓我理解你的想法呢？」「好奇交談」的顯著成效是，你在談話中表現出的好奇心，也會使對方對你產生好奇。

Whether it's a friendly Australian gentleman, a political foe or a corporate rival, they begin to wonder what it is that you see and whether they could see it to.Constructive conversations aren't a one-shot deal. If you go into an encounter expecting everyone to walk out with the same point of view that you walked in with,there's really no chance for progress.

無論對方是友好的澳大利亞人、政敵或商業對手，他們開始好奇你是如何看待問題，他們是否也能夠理解你的角度。「建設性談話」不是一次性解決矛盾。如果展開一次談話的時候，你期待每個人都跟你的想法一致，那就會失去進步的可能性。

Instead, we need to think about conversations as a climbing wall to do a variant of what my dad did during this trip, pocketing a little nugget of information here, adapting his approach there. That's actually a technique borrowed from formal debate where you present an idea, it's attacked. And you adapt and re-explain. It's attacked again. You adapt and re-explain.

相反，我們要將談話看成攀岩運動，就像我父親在這次旅行中做的，抓住一塊有用的信息，做為支撐點，並尋找下一塊有用的信息。這借鑑了正式辯論中使用的技能，當你提出一個觀點，被反方駁回，你以對方的觀點為基礎，繼續論證自己的觀點，再次被對方駁回，你再次重新論證自己的觀點。

The whole expectation is that your idea gets better through challenge and criticism. And the evidence from really high-stakes international negotiations suggests that that's what successful negotiators do as well. They go into conversations expecting to learn from the challenges that they will receive to use objections to make their ideas and proposals better. Development is in some way a service that we can do for others and that others can do for us.

我們所期望的是，通過不斷的質疑和批判，能夠產生更好的想法。在高風險的國際談判中，成功的談判者也是這樣做的。在談判中，他們期待從反對意見中吸取有價值的信息，來完善自己的觀點和建議。從某種意義上說，這種觀點的發展，是一種服務，我們可以為他人服務，其他人也可以為我們服務。

It makes the ideas sharper, but the relationships warmer. Curiosity can be relationship magic and development can be rocket fuel for your ideas. But there are some situations where it just feels like it's not worth the bother. And in those cases, it can be because the purpose of the discussion isn't clear.

用這種方式交談，會使觀點變的尖銳，但關係會變得更和諧。好奇是使關係變得融洽的魔法，發展是你思想能量的來源。但是仍然有一些情況，讓我們認為不值得浪費精力，使用這種交談的方式。在這種情況下，可能是因為討論的目的並不明確。

I think back to how my dad went into those conversations with a really clear sense of purpose. He was there to learn, to listen, to share his point of view.And once that purpose is understood by both parties, then you can begin to move on. Lay out our vision for the future. Make a decision. Get funding. Then you can move on to principles.

我希望分析我父親是如何交談的，他談話的目的都是清晰的。他一邊以理解和傾聽為基礎，一邊分享自己的觀點。當談話者雙方都知道這個目的，談話就可以繼續進行了。闡述我們對未來的願景。做出決定。獲得資金。然後可以再次進行。

When people shared with my dad their hopes for America, that's where they started with the big picture, not with personality or politics or policies. Because inadvertently they were doing something that we do naturally with outsiders and find it really difficult sometimes to do with insiders. They painted in broad strokes before digging into the details.

當人們跟我父親談到對美國的期望時，他們總是從全局開始，而不是從個人、政治或者某項政策開始。因為人們在無意識中，能自然地跟局外人交談，但是卻很難跟局內人交談。所以他們在探究細節之前，先從全局開始。

But maybe you live in the same zip code or the same house and it feels like none of that common ground is there today. Then you might consider a version of disagreement time travel, asking your counterpart to articulate what kind of neighborhood, country, world,community, they want a year from now, a decade from now.

可能你們住在同一個地區或同一個屋檐下，但是你們之間卻沒有任何共通之處。那麼你們可以先從「時空旅行」開始，比如你可以問對方：「你認為一年後，或者十年後，你的鄰居、國家、世界或社會是什麼樣的？」

It is very tempting to dwell in present tensions and get bogged down in practicalities. Inviting people to inhabit a future possibility opens up the chance of a conversation with purpose. Earlier in my career, I worked for the deputy prime minister of New Zealand who practiced a version of this technique. New Zealand's electoral system is designed for unlikely friendships, coalitions, alliances, memoranda of understanding are almost inevitable.

我們的談話很容易陷入當今緊張局勢，或陷入現實困境中。但是邀請人們展望未來，就開啟了有目的對話的機會。在我職業生涯的早期，我為新西蘭副總理工作，他使用了這種技能。新西蘭的選舉制度使得各黨派之間，不可能存在友好關係，不同政黨的聯合、結盟、簽署諒解備忘錄，都是不可避免的。

And this particular government set-up had some of almost everything, small government conservatives, liberals, the Indigenous people's party, the Green Party.And I recently asked him, what does it take to bring a group like that together but hold them together? He said: Someone, you, has to take responsibility for reminding them of their shared purpose: caring for people. If we are more focused on what makes us different than the same, then every debate is a fight.

新西蘭政府幾乎囊括了所有黨派，包括保守派、自由派、原住民黨和綠黨。最近我請教他：「如何把這樣一個群體聚集在一起，並緊密的團結起來？」他說：「必須有人時刻提醒他們，政府存在的共同目標，就是關心人民」。如果我們更多關注的是彼此的區別，而不是相同點，那麼每場辯論，都會是一場戰爭。

If we put our challenges and our problems before us, then every potential ally becomes an adversary. But as my dad packed his bags for the three flights, 25 hours, 10,000 miles back to Australia, he was also packing a collection of new perspectives. A new way of navigating conversations, and a whole set of new stories and experiences to share. But he was also leaving those behind with everyone that he'd interacted with.

如果我們在辯論之前，先把挑戰和問題擺在前面，那麼每一個潛在的盟友都會變成敵人。在我父親乘坐了三趟航班，共持續25個小時，跨越了10000英里返回到澳大利亞，他也帶回了許多新的視角，學會了引導談話的新方式，收穫了一系列的新故事和經驗。但是他將這些技巧和心得留給了與他對話的所有人。

We love unlikely friendships when they look like this.We've just forgotten how to make them. And amid the cacophony of cable news and the awkwardness of family dinners, and the hostility of corporate meetings.Each of us has this, the opportunity to walk into every encounter, like my dad walked off that plane, to choose curiosity over clash, to expect development of your ideas through discussion and to anchor in common purpose.

我們喜歡像這樣意外發生的友誼。我們只是忘了如何成就意外的友誼。在嘈雜的新聞電視台、尷尬的家庭聚餐、敵意滿滿的公司會議中。我們中的每個人，都有機會在展開每一次談話時，就像我父親在那次旅行中一樣，選擇好奇，而不是衝突，通過討論使想法進步，找到交談的共同目標。

That's what really world-class persuaders do to build constructive conversations and move them forward.It's how our world will move forward too. Thank you.

這就是真正世界級談判者所做的，開啟建設性的對話，並不斷向前推動。我們的世界也將如此向前發展。謝謝。