Three people are at a dinner party. Paul, who's married, is looking at Linda. Meanwhile, Linda is looking at John, who's not married. Is someone who's married looking at someone who's not married? Take a moment to think about it.
晚餐派對有三個人。已婚的 Paul 正盯著 Linda 瞧。同時，Linda 正盯著未婚的 John 瞧。那麼，有已婚人士正盯著未婚人士嗎？花點時間想一想。
Most people answer that there's not enough information to tell. And most people are wrong. Linda must be either married or not married. There are no other options. So in either scenario, someone married is looking at someone who's not married.
大多數的人都說資訊不足，無法判斷。而大多數的人都錯了。Linda 要不已婚、要不未婚。沒有其他可能。所以不管是哪種情形，都有已婚人士正盯著未婚人士。
When presented with the explanation, most people change their minds and accept the correct answer, despite being very confident in their first responses.
提出這樣的解釋後，多數人都改變想法並接受正確答案，儘管最初回答時自信滿滿。
Now let's look at another case. A 2005 study by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler examined American attitudes regarding the justifications for the Iraq War. Researchers presented participants with a news article that showed that no weapons of mass destruction had been found. Yet many participants not only continued to believe that WMDs had been found, but they even became more convinced of their original views.
現在來看另一個例子。Brendan Nyhan 和 Jason Reifler 在 2005 年的研究中調查美國人如何看待引發伊拉克戰爭的理由。研究者給受試者看了一則新聞，顯示並未在伊拉克找到任何大規模毀滅性武器。但許多受試者不僅依然相信已找到大規模毀滅性武器，甚至更加確信他們原先的想法。
So, why do arguments change people's minds in some cases and backfire in others?
所以，為什麼有些論點能改變人們想法，有些卻適得其反呢？
Arguments are more convincing when they rest on a good knowledge of the audience, taking into account what the audience believes, who they trust, and what they value.
基於對閱聽人的透徹了解而發展出的論點會比較具有說服力，這些論點將閱聽人相信、信任、重視的人事物都納入考量。
Mathematical and logical arguments like the dinner-party brainteaser work because even when people reach different conclusions, they're starting from the same set of shared beliefs.
類似晚餐派對思辨的數學和邏輯論點之所以能成功，是因為即使大家得出不同結論，出發點都來自同一套共同信念。
In 1931, a young, unknown mathematician named Kurt Godel presented a proof that a logically complete system of mathematics was impossible. Despite upending decades of work by brilliant mathematicians like Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert, the proof was accepted because it relied on axioms that everyone in the field already agreed on.
1931 年，一位沒沒無聞的年輕數學家 Kurt Godel 證實邏輯上來說不可能存在一個完備的數學系統。儘管這個論證推翻數十年來許多傑出數學家如 Bertrand Russell 和 David Hilbert 的努力成果，卻受到認可，因為這個論證是基於領域中所有人都已認同的公理。
Of course, many disagreements involve different beliefs that can't simply be reconciled through logic. When these beliefs involve outside information, the issue often comes down to what sources and authorities people trust.
當然，許多分歧牽涉到無法單靠邏輯思路取得共識的不同理念。當這些理念涉及外部資訊，事情的關鍵往往會是大家相信的資訊來源和權威人士。
One study asked people to estimate several statistics related to the scope of climate change. Participants were asked questions, such as "How many of the years between 1995 and 2006 were one of the hottest 12 years since 1850?"
有份研究要求受試者評估幾項與氣候變遷範疇相關的數據。受試者被問及一些問題，例如：「1850 年以來最熱的 12 個年份，1995 到 2006 年佔了多少個？」
After providing their answers, they were presented with data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in this case, showing that the answer was 11 of the 12 years. Being provided with these reliable statistics from a trusted official source made people more likely to accept the reality that the earth is warming.
受試者給出答案後，研究者會給受試者看一份政府間氣候變化專門委員會的數據，在這個例子中，顯示答案是佔 12 個最熱年份的 11 個。看到這些來自可信任的官方資訊來源提供的可靠數據，使受試者更能接受地球正在暖化的事實。
Finally, for disagreements that can't be definitively settled with statistics or evidence, making a convincing argument may depend on engaging the audience's values.
最後，對於那些無法就數據或證據達成最終共識的分歧，論點是否具說服力可能就要取決於納入閱聽人的價值觀與否。
For example, researchers have conducted a number of studies where they've asked people of different political backgrounds to rank their values. Liberals in these studies, on average, rank fairness—here meaning whether everyone is treated in the same way—above loyalty.
例如，研究者做了一些調查，要求不同政治背景的人將自己的價值觀排名。調查中，自由主義者一般都認為公平－－這裡指所有人是否受到相同對待－－比忠誠更重要。
In later studies, researchers attempted to convince liberals to support military spending with a variety of arguments. Arguments based on fairness, like that the military provides employment and education to people from disadvantaged backgrounds, were more convincing than arguments based on loyalty, such as that the military unifies a nation.
在後來的調查中，研究者試圖透過各種不同論點說服自由主義者支持軍事開支。基於公平的論點，如軍隊提供弱勢族群就業和教育機會，其說服力高於基於忠誠的論點，如軍隊讓國家團結。
These three elements—beliefs, trusted sources, and values—may seem like a simple formula for finding agreement and consensus.
這三項要素－－信念、信任資訊來源和價值觀－－看起來像是達成一致意見和共識的簡單公式。
The problem is that our initial inclination is to think of arguments that rely on our own beliefs, trusted sources, and values. And even when we don't, it can be challenging to correctly identify what's held dear by people who don't already agree with us.
但問題是，我們一開始較容易仰賴我們自身信念、信任資訊來源和價值觀來想出論點。而即使我們沒有這種傾向，要正確判斷原先與我們意見相左的人深信的理念是什麼，也不是件容易的事。
The best way to find out is simply to talk to them. In the course of discussion, you'll be exposed to counter arguments and rebuttals. These can help you make your own arguments and reasoning more convincing, and sometimes, you may even end up being the one changing your mind.
最好的方法就是直接跟他們談。在討論過程中，你會接觸到一些反面論點和駁斥。這些能幫助你把論點和論證變得更具有說服力，而且有時候，最後改變心意的甚至可能是你自己。
- 「基於、以...為基礎」- Rest On
Arguments are more convincing when they rest on a good knowledge of the audience, taking into account what the audience believes, who they trust, and what they value.
基於對閱聽人的透徹了解而發展出的論點會比較具有說服力，這些論點將閱聽人相信、信任、重視的人事物都納入考量。 - 「高度重視、喜愛、深信」- Hold Dear
And even when we don't, it can be challenging to correctly identify what's held dear by people who don't already agree with us.
而即使我們沒有這種傾向，要正確判斷原先與我們意見相左的人深信的理念是什麼，也不是件容易的事。 - 「在...期間、在...過程中」- In The Course Of
In the course of discussion, you'll be exposed to counter arguments and rebuttals.
在討論過程中，你會接觸到一些反面論點和駁斥。
