请收下这本“杠精退散指南”

生活中你是否遇到过这样的人，他们喜欢就某一件事情发表自己的看法，可在一通喋喋不休之后，作为听众的你能提炼出来的信息却并不多，于是你据理力争，想要和对方“一决高下”，可正面 battle 后剩下的只有还漂浮在半空中的唾沫星子。与其说这是辩论，不如说是对方故作姿态的自说自话，这样的所谓“辩论”实在太过苍白，那么今天的这篇文章讨论的就是辩论的艺术，教你如何“舌战群儒”，科学辩论

# The science of influencing people: two ways to win an argument

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters of religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s,” wrote Mark Twain.

马克·吐温曾写道：“如今我很确信的是，在通常情况下，（甚至可以说）在大多数情况下，人类在宗教和政治问题上的推理能力还不如猴子。”

Having written a book about our most common reasoning errors, I would argue that Twain was being rather uncharitable — to monkeys. Whether we are discussing Trump or Brexit, we have all come across people who appear to have next to no understanding of world events — but who talk with the utmost confidence and conviction.

鉴于本人撰写了一本关于我们（人类）最常犯的推理错误的书，我认为吐温这样评价过于刻薄了——对猴子来说。不论是在谈论特朗普还是脱欧问题时，我们都遇到过这样的人，虽然他们看上去对国际大事几乎一无所知，却又刚愎自用、夸夸其谈。

Fortunately, recent psychological research offers evidence-based ways towards achieving more fruitful discussions.

幸运的是，近期的一项心理学研究为实现更加富有成效的讨论提供了一些基于证据的方法。

Ask ‘how’ rather than ‘why’

询问“怎么样”而非“为什么”

A simple but powerful way of deflating someone’s argument is to ask for more detail.

削弱某人论点的一个简单而有力的方式是询问更多详细信息。

It’s important to note that simply asking why people supported or opposed the policy — without requiring them to explain how it works — had no effect, since those reasons could be shallower with little detail. You need to ask how something works to get the effect.

非常重要的一点是，仅仅只问人们为什么支持或反对某项政策，而不要求其解释该政策的运作方式，这是毫无成效的，因为那些原因可能相当肤浅，没有信息支撑。因此，你需要问某件事是如何运作的，才能达到（讨论的）效果。

If you are debating the merits of a no-deal Brexit, you might ask someone to describe exactly how the UK’s international trade would change under WTO terms.

假如你正在就无协议脱欧的好处进行辩论，你就可以要求对方明确地讲一讲，在世界贸易组织的条款规定下，英国的国际贸易会发生怎样的变化。

Reframe the issue

重构议题

Each of our beliefs is deeply rooted in a much broader and more complex political ideology. Attacking one issue may therefore threaten to unravel someone’s whole worldview.

我们的每一种信念都深深植根于一个范围更广、结构更复杂的政治理念当中。对某一议题的抨击可能会瓦解某人的整个世界观。

You are not going to alter someone’s whole political ideology in one discussion, so a better strategy is to disentangle the issue at hand from their broader beliefs, or to explain how the facts can still be accommodated into their worldview.

你无法在一场讨论中改变某人的整个政治理念，因此，一种更好的策略是，将当前议题与他们更广义的信念分离开来，或是解释清楚，事实是如何与他们的世界观相契合的。

A free-market capitalist who denies global warming might be far more receptive to the evidence if you explain that the development of renewable energies could lead to technological breakthroughs and generate economic growth.

对于一个自由市场下否认全球变暖现象的资本家来说，如果你向其解释，可再生能源的发展会带来技术突破，继而推动经济发展，那么他可能会更愿意接受相关论据。