|
当两人的观点截然相反时，很可能有一个人是错的。搞明白是不是你错了很有价值。所以我认为，你必须领会深思熟虑的分歧当中的艺术。在深思熟虑的意见分歧中，你的目标不是说服你是对的，而是弄明白谁是对的，并决定该怎么做。双方的动力都是对错过重要观点的担忧。你们彼此要真正看到对方看到的东西，也就是说，你们两人“更高层次的我”努力探寻事实，这样的交流使双方受益匪浅，并能释放出巨大的未被发掘的潜力。
要做好这一点，你的沟通方式应该要让对方明白你只是在试图理解。你应该提问而不是做出陈述，以平心静气的方式进行讨论，并鼓励对方也这么做。记住，你不是在争论，而是在开放地探求事实。你要保持理性，并期待对方也保持理性。如果你冷静，平等对待对方，尊重对方，效果就会更好。多加练习可以让你做得越来越好。 在我看来，人们在发生分歧时变得愤怒是毫无意义的。因为大多数分歧与其说是威胁，不如说是学习的机会。在学到东西后改变想法的人是赢家，顽固拒绝学习的人是输家。这不是说你应该盲目接受其他人的结论，而是你既要头脑开放也要坚定：你既应该认识并探究各种相互冲突的可能性，也应根据了解到的情况，随时迅速地调整自己的想法，接受可能正确的东西。有的人能轻易做到这一点，其他人却不行。 一种检验你做得好不好的方式是：把和你有分歧的人的观点，向对方复述一遍。如果他肯定你的复述，就说明你做得很好。我还建议双方都遵守“两分钟法则”，两分钟内不许打断对方，以便对方有时间把想法说清楚。一些人担心这样做太费时间。解决分歧确实颇费时间，但你把时间花在这上面才叫物有所值。关键是你要对花时间干什么、和谁花这时间进行排序。很多人都会和你产生分歧，若考虑所有这些观点将是很低效的。跟任何人都头脑开放不一定有好处，你应该花时间和你能找到的最可信的人探讨观点。 如果你们发现讨论陷入了僵局，就商定一个你们都尊重的人，让他帮着主持讨论。最没有成效的方式是你在自己脑子里试图把事情想明白（这是大多数人的倾向），或者在讨论收效已不断减少的情况下继续浪费时间。发生这样的情况时，你们应该转向更有成效的方式—达成相互理解，这不等于达成一致。例如，你们都同意保持分歧。 为什么人们通常不用上述方式来讨论？因为大多数人本能地不愿表达分歧。例如，如果两个人去到一家餐馆，一个人说他喜欢这家餐馆的菜，另一个人通常会说“我也喜欢”，或者什么也不说，尽管他心里不喜欢。不愿表达分歧的原因是，“较低层次的你”误以为分歧是冲突。所以做到头脑极度开放并不容易：你必须自学这种技艺，在交换意见时努力让你和对方都不出现这种反应。 观点错误并据其做出糟糕的决策，而不是奉行深思熟虑的意见分歧，这是人类的最大悲剧之一。如果人们能奉行深思熟虑的意见分歧，将很容易让所有领域的决策大大改善，包括公共政策、政治、医药、科学、慈善、人际关系等。 When two people believe opposite things, chances are that one of them is wrong. It pays to find out if that someone is you. That’s why I believe you must appreciate and develop the art of thoughtful disagreement. In thoughtful disagreement, your goal is not to convince the other party that you are right—it is to find out which view is true and decide what to do about it. In thoughtful disagreement, both parties are motivated by the genuine fear of missing important perspectives. Exchanges in which you really see what the other person is seeing and they really see what you are seeing—with both your “higher-level yous” trying to get to the truth—are immensely helpful and a giant source of untapped potential.To do this well, approach the conversation in a way that conveys that you’re just trying to understand. Use questions rather than make statements. Conduct the discussion in a calm and dispassionate manner, and encourage the other person to do that as well. Remember, you are not arguing; you are openly exploring what’s true. Be reasonable and expect others to be reasonable. If you’re calm, collegial, and respectful you will do a lot better than if you are not. You’ll get better at this with practice.To me, it’s pointless when people get angry with each other when they disagree because most disagreements aren’t threats as much as opportunities for learning. People who change their minds because they learned something are the winners, whereas those who stubbornly refuse to learn are the losers. That doesn’t mean that you should blindly accept others’ conclusions. You should be what I call open-minded and assertive at the same time—you should hold and explore conflicting possibilities in your mind while moving fluidly toward whatever is likely to be true based on what you learn. Some people can do this easily while others can’t. A good exercise to make sure that you are doing this well is to describe back to the person you are disagreeing with their own perspective. If they agree that you’ve got it, then you’re in good shape. I also recommend that both parties observe a “two-minute rule” in which neither interrupts the other, so they both have time to get all their thoughts out.Some people worry that operating this way is time consuming. Working through disagreements does take time but it’s just about the best way you can spend it. What’s important is that you prioritize what you spend time on and who you spend it with. There are lots of people who will disagree with you, and it would be unproductive to consider all their views. It doesn’t pay to be open-minded with everyone. Instead, spend your time exploring ideas with the most believable people you have access to.If you find you’re at an impasse, agree on a person you both respect and enlist them to help moderate the discussion. What’s really counterproductive is spinning in your own head about what’s going on, which most people are prone to do—or wasting time disagreeing past the point of diminishing returns. When that happens, move on to a more productive way of getting to a mutual understanding, which isn’t necessarily the same thing as agreement. For example, you might agree to disagree. Why doesn’t thoughtful disagreement like this typically occur? Because most people are instinctively reluctant to disagree. For example, if two people go to a restaurant and one says he likes the food, the other is more likely to say “I like it too” or not say anything at all, even if that’s not true. The reluctance to disagree is the “lower-level you’s” mistaken interpretation of disagreement as conflict. That’s why radical open-mindedness isn’t easy: You need to teach yourself the art of having exchanges in ways that don’t trigger such reactions in yourself or others. Holding wrong opinions in one’s head and making bad decisions based on them instead of having thoughtful disagreements is one of the greatest tragedies of mankind. Being able to thoughtfully disagree would so easily lead to radically improved decision making in all areas—public policy, politics, medicine, science, philanthropy, personal relationships, and more.
|
