演讲者：Hugo Mercier演讲题目：How can you change someone's mind? https://v.qq.com/txp/iframe/player.html?width=500&height=375&auto=0&vid=x3028mp78f8TED演讲稿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. 三个人正在参加晚宴。已婚的保罗正盯着琳达看。与此同时，琳达却盯着未婚的约翰。有没有谁已经结婚却盯着未婚的人看呢？花点时间想一想。
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. 大多数人回答说没有足够的信息能够判断。但他们都错了。琳达必然是已婚或是未婚，没有其他可能。So in either scenario, someone married is looking at someone who’s not married. When presented with the explanation, most people change their minds and accept the correct answer, despite being very confident in their first responses. 因此不管在哪一种情况下，都存在已婚的某人在看着未婚的某人。当给出这个解释时，大多数人都改变了他们的想法，并且接受了这个正确答案，即便他们当时对自己第一次的回答十分自信。
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. 现在我们再来看看另一个问题。2005年，Brendan Nyhan和Jason Reifler进行了一项研究，调查了美国人对于伊拉克战争是否正义的态度。Researchers presented participants with a news article that showed 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. 研究员们展示给参与者一篇新的文章，内容是说没有找到大规模杀伤性武器。但是许多参与人员不仅继续相信大规模杀伤性武器存在，并且甚至更坚定自己原来的想法。So why do arguments change people’s minds in some cases and backfire in others? 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. 为何观点有时能改变人们的想法而有时却起到反作用？观点若要更具说服力需要建立在充分了解受众的基础上，考虑到他们相信什么，他们信任谁，以及他们在乎什么。
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. In 1931, a young, unknown mathematician named Kurt Gödel presented a proof that a logically complete system of mathematics was impossible. 对于晚宴问题这样的趣味智力题，数理逻辑的观点之所以行得通。在于即便人们得到不同的结论，他们是基于相同的价值观进行思考。1931年，一位年轻而默默无闻的数学家Kurt Gödel证明了，一个逻辑上完备的数学体系是不可能的。
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. 即便经过杰出数学家Bertrand Russell和David Hilbert数十年的努力，这项证明仍然被接受了，因为它建立在该领域已经承认的公理上。
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. One study asked people to estimate several statistics related to the scope of climate change. 当然，许多不同意见包含有不同的看法，这些不同意见无法通过逻辑简单调和。当这些想法涉及到外部信息，问题经常变成人们信任哪些信息来源和权威人士。一项研究让人们对气候变化领域的数据做出预测。
Participants were asked questions, such as “how many of the years between 1995 and 2006 were one of the hottest 12 years since 1850?” After providing their answers, 参加者需要回答一些问题，例如1995年至2006年这12年间，有多少年是1850年来最炎热的年份。在参与者提供答案之后，
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. 他们会看到来自气候变化政府小组的数据，数据会先显示出答案是11年。当看到这些来自值得信任的官方数据，人们更倾向于接受全球变暖的事实。
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. For example, researchers have conducted a number of studies where they’ve asked people of different political backgrounds to rank their values. 最后，对于完全不能靠数据或证据解决的不同意见来说，给出令人信服的观点可能在于抓住受众所在乎的东西。例如，研究人员进行了一些研究，他们询问了不同政治背景的人们，让他们对自己的价值观进行排位。
Liberals in these studies, on average, rank fairness— here meaning whether everyone is treated in the same way—above loyalty. In later studies, researchers attempted to convince liberals to support military spending with a variety of arguments. 平均来看，在这项研究中自由党人士认为，人人平等比忠诚更重要。在之后的研究中，研究者们试图用各种观点说服自由派人士支持军费开支。
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. 基于平等的观点——例如军队为那些来自贫困家庭的人们提供就业以及教育——比基于忠诚的观点更有说服力——比如军队使国家团结。
These three elements— beliefs, trusted sources, and values— may seem like a simple formula for finding agreement and consensus. The problem is that our initial inclination is to think of arguments that rely on our own beliefs, trusted sources, and values. 以下三种要素——信仰，可信的信息来源以及价值观——可能看上去是取得共识的简单公式。但问题在于我们在一开始仍倾向于以自己的信仰、可信消息来源和价值观为基础构想观点。
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. 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. 即便我们不这样做，正确识别出意见不同的人们看重什么也是一件很困难的事情。最好的办法是和他们聊天。在讨论的过程中，你会接触到反面观点和驳斥。
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. 这些可以帮助你完善自己的观点和推理，甚至有时候，最终改变你想法的人可能就是你自己。