Research suggests oral, not written, communication works best.
研究表明,与意见不同的人交流的最好方法并非书面表达,而是当面交流。
 
 
We’ve all been there: those times you need to argue your point of view to someone who you know disagrees with you. You immediately go to your keyboard and start to type out that 280-character tweet, the Facebook reply, or a paragraphs-long email. Surely the reason, logic, and sheer power of your written words will convince whoever it is who disagrees with you to see your point of view? But new research suggests these written arguments may not be the best approach.
我们都有过这样的经历:有时候我们需要和与自己观点不同的人争论。这时你会立即打开你的键盘,开始输入280个字符的tweet、Facebook回复,或者编辑一封冗长的电子邮件。但是难道书面文字的理据、逻辑和不容置疑的力量一定就会说服对方吗?新的研究表明,这些书面交流可能不是最好的方法。
 
That research was conducted by Juliana Schroeder, assistant professor of management of organizations at the Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, and her colleagues. In Schroeder’s study of almost 300 people, participants were asked to watch, listen, and read arguments about subjects they agreed or disagreed with, including abortion, music, and war. They were asked to judge the character of the communicator and the quality or veracity of the argument. Schroeder’s team found that the participants who watched or listened to the communicator were less dismissive of their claims than when they read that communicator’s same argument.
加州大学伯克利分校哈斯商学院(Haas School of Business)的管理学助理教授朱莉安娜•施罗德(Juliana Schroeder)和她的同事完成了这份研究。Schroeder对近300人进行调查研究,参与者被要求观看、聆听和阅读他们同意或不同意的话题,包括堕胎、音乐和战争。他们被要求判断发布者的性格和争论的质量或真实性。Schroeder的研究小组发现,相比观看或者聆听发布者信息的参与者来说,阅读文字的参与者更容易对发布者有抵触情绪。
 
Schroeder’s findings have obvious implications for all forums for communication, especially those in the workplace. The idea for her study came from a newspaper article about a politician, she told the Washington Post:
Schroeder的发现适用于所有的交流场合,尤其是在工作场所。她在《华盛顿邮报》中表示,她的研究灵感来自一篇关于一位政治家的报纸文章:
 
One of us read a speech excerpt that was printed in a newspaper from a politician with whom he strongly disagreed. The next week, he heard the exact same speech clip playing on a radio station. He was shocked by how different his reaction was toward the politician when he read the excerpt compared to when he heard it. When he read the statement, the politician seemed idiotic, but when he heard it spoken, the politician actually sounded reasonable.
我们中的一个人读了一篇报纸上的演讲节选,他强烈反对这一观点。下个星期,他听到了在之声播放的完全相同的讲话剪辑。但他在两种情境下的反应是很不一样的,连他自己都对这种差别感到惊讶。当他读到这一声明时,这位政治家看起来很白痴,但当他听到这些句子时,这位政客实际上说的很有道理。
 
Schroeder’s research also found the participants who listened to or watched the communicators talk were also less likely to dehumanize them–a phenomenon where we subconsciously belittle or demonize the cognitive capabilities and moral attributes of people who hold views other than our own. So whether it’s convincing a stranger that #MeToo matters, discussing  politics with a friend, or explaining to other board members why your vision of the company is the right one, here are three tips to communicate effectively to give your argument the chance of being truly understood.
Schroeder的研究还发现,听过或观看过发布者谈话的参与者也很少强烈反对这些发布者。在这种现象中,我们下意识地贬低或妖魔化那些持有不同观点的人的认知能力和道德品质。所以,不管是说服陌生人,还是和朋友讨论政治,或是向董事会成员解释你对公司的看法是正确的,这里有三条建议可以帮助你有效地沟通,让你的论点有机会被真正理解。
 
1. WORK BACKWARDS FROM ANOTHER PERSON’S KNOWN BELIEF
从对方已知信仰出发
We live in a world of digital, primarily text-based communication. While that is great for convenience (you can read a message when you want to), Schroeder’s work suggests that’s horrible for times when you need to convince people who disagree with you, as people are more prone to dehumanize you when you communicate in writing.
我们生活在一个数字化的世界,主要是基于文本的交流。虽然这很方便(你可以随时读取信息),但是Schroeder的研究表明,当你需要说服那些不同意你的人的时候,这是很可怕的,因为当你用书面交流的时候,人们倾向于将你物化。
 
“The intuitive tendency to dehumanize opponents stems, in part, from the fact that we’re unable to directly experience another person’s mind compared to our own,” Schroeder told me. “Instead, we have to work backwards from another person’s known belief (say, ‘Gun control is bad’) to his or her unknown thinking or reasoning. A seemingly nonsensical belief, the inference process goes, comes from a nonsensical mind.”
Schroeder表示:“在某种程度上,我们倾向于物化对方的根本原因是无法直接体会另一个人的思想。”相反,我们必须从另一个人的已知信念(比如,“枪支控制是不好的”)中逆向而行,以了解他或她的未知想法或推理。看似荒谬的信念或者推理过程,来自于荒谬的思想。
 
Of course, sometimes we have no option but to communicate via text. If this is the case, it’s imperative to be extra attentive to your choice of words and phrases. Using non-emotive, fact-based, to-the-point arguments are the best way to combat the reader’s natural penchant to dehumanize you.
当然,有时我们别无选择,只能通过文字进行交流。如果是这样的话,你就必须格外注意你对单词和短语的选择。使用非情绪化的、基于事实的论点是对抗读者这种物化倾向的最好方法。

2. OPT FOR IN-PERSON COMMUNICATION IF POSSIBLE
尽可能选择当面交流
Ideally, you’ll want to always choose to convey your argument in person if you can. “Hearing a message from a political [or other] opponent can humanize the opponent, compared to reading the same message,” said Schroeder via email. “One reason for this seems to be that variance in communicators’ natural paralinguistic cues in their voices (e.g., tone) can convey their thoughtfulness.”
理想情况下,你会想要亲自去表达你的观点。Schroeder通过电子邮件说:“看到政治(或其他)对手的言论会下意识地物化对方,但听到这些言论可以避免这一点。”“这其中的一个原因似乎是,沟通者在他们的声音(例如,语调)中自然流露的语言暗示能够传达他们的思想。”
 
In the workplace, speaking to someone in person often involves nothing more than walking a few doors down to their office. And that’s exactly what you should do if you need to convince that boss or colleague of why your blueprint for the company or project is the right one.
在工作场所,和一个人面对面交谈通常只需要你多走几步、推开那扇门。如果你需要说服老板或同事赞同你的企业或项目规划,你就应该这么做。

3. VIDEO CONFERENCING IS BETTER THAN EMAIL
视频会议效果好于电子邮件
But even if you don’t work in the same building as your colleague, or live in the same state or country as one of your Facebook friends you’re arguing with about gun control, you’re not out of luck. It’s now easier than ever to communicate with people by voice or video call. So before sending an email or posting a message, open Skype or Facebook Messenger for an audio or video call so the recipient of your message can hear the variance and paralinguistic cues in your voice.
但是,即使你和你的同事不在同一栋楼里工作,或者和你的Facebook朋友争论枪支控制问题,你们住在同一个州或同一个国家,但距离遥远,这时候也有解决办法。现在用语音或视频电话与人交流比以往任何时候都容易。因此,在发送电子邮件或发布信息之前,打开Skype或Facebook Messenger进行音频或视频通话,这样你的信息接收者就能听到你声音中的细微起伏和副语言暗示。
 
Only as a last resort should you try to communicate with someone who you disagree with over social media. Twitter’s limited text allowance and social media users’ short attention spans make arguing your point an uphill battle.
社交媒体交流只是你与人争论的最后选择, Twitter的文字限制和社交媒体用户的短暂注意力,会让你的争论成为一场艰苦的战斗。