第2743a期:Why meeting in the middle isn’t enough(3)

So a question that I always get asked is: How? How do we integrate different perspectives? Well, it's an art and a science and something that has been explored at length by thinkers from Georg Hegel to Ken Wilber. But for us here today, I'm going to distill it into three questions that I ask myself. Here we go.我经常被问到的一个问题是：“怎么做？”——我们该如何整合不同的观点？这既是一门艺术，也是一门科学，早在黑格尔到肯·威尔伯等思想家那里就被深入探讨过。但今天在这里，我想把它提炼成我自己经常问自己的三个问题。我们开始吧。First question: Is there an either/or that can be flipped to a both/and? Well, on the issue of race -- yep, we're going there -- the problem is framed as either the system, which is racist, or the individual, who should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.第一个问题：有没有一个“非此即彼”的命题，其实可以转化成“此亦彼亦”？比如在种族议题上——没错，我们要谈这个——问题往往被描述为：要么是系统有种族歧视，要么是个体自己不够努力。But naturally, the drivers of racial disparity lie originally with the system, but now also to an extent with the individual, which means we must build systems that empower individuals.但事实上，种族差异的根源确实最初来自于系统，但如今也部分归因于个体。这意味着我们需要建立一种既承认系统问题、又能赋能个体的制度。The question isn’t just do race-based policies work but how might we use race-based policies in a way that allows us to not need them anymore?问题不只是“种族政策是否有效”，而是“我们如何运用种族政策，使有一天我们不再需要它们？”Second question: Is there an opportunity to shift from “what’s right” to "under what circumstances, if any"? On the issue of abortion, we can shift from “Who’s right, pro-choice or pro-life?” to “Under what circumstances should abortion be legal?”第二个问题：我们是否可以将讨论从“谁对谁错”转向“在什么条件下成立”？比如在堕胎议题上，我们可以从“支持选择权还是支持生命权”这一二元对立，转变为“在什么情况下堕胎应该是合法的？”And if we leave out "all circumstances" and "no circumstances," and we integrate the rest of the views of the American public, we will likely end up with a policy that generally elevates the rights of the woman up until a point of viability, and then elevates the rights of the fetus, while making exceptions for rape, incest and a threat to the life of the mother.如果我们撇开“任何情况下都可以”与“任何情况下都不可以”这两个极端观点，并融合美国公众的其他意见，我们可能会形成一种折中政策：在胎儿具有生存能力之前优先保障女性权利，之后则更注重胎儿的权利，同时在强奸、乱伦或危及母亲生命的情况下做出例外。And finally, are there perverse incentives that are making the issue harder to resolve? So on the issue of gender transition, we are up against a social media business model that drives poor body image, outrage and polarization, and a healthcare industry that is built around intervention.最后一个问题：有没有“扭曲的激励机制”让问题更难解决？以性别转变议题为例，我们面对的是一种以社交媒体为基础的商业模式，它制造身体焦虑、煽动愤怒与极端对立；以及一种以“介入”为核心逻辑的医疗产业。So if we addressed these upstream incentives, then more of us could trust that an individual is making a gender transition not because social media made them feel awful about their body, but because that's truly the right thing for them.所以如果我们能从源头上解决这些激励机制，那么更多人就能相信，个体选择性别转变，不是因为社交媒体让他们讨厌自己的身体，而是因为那真的是适合他们的选择。Now this kind of integration does get confused with both-sidesism, the idea that all sides are equally relevant and valuable. It also gets confused with relativism, the idea that there’s no absolute truth, and everything is contextual.这种整合方法常常被误解为“各方都对主义”（both-sidesism），即认为所有立场都同等重要与合理；也常被误解为相对主义，即没有绝对真理，一切都依赖语境。But the reality is it's unlikely that one of us is entirely right. Usually that's a sign of tribalism. It's also unlikely that all of us are equally right. That's both-sidesism.但现实是，我们之中很难有谁是完全正确的——通常这种想法只是部落主义的表现；同样，我们也不太可能全都“一样对”——那是“各方都对主义”。What's most likely is that most of us are partially right, and some of us are more right than others, which doesn't make for a great tagline. But that's what's up when we're contending with the complexity of reality.最可能的情况是：我们大多数人都是“部分正确”，而有些人比其他人“更接近正确”。这不是个好听的宣传口号，但在面对现实的复杂性时，这就是事实。So next time you are in a gridlocked argument about some hot political issue, assume that the other person has some nugget of insight, and your job is to find it and incorporate it into your perspective.所以下次你陷入某个政治热点问题的僵局时，先假设对方有一些洞见，你的任务就是去发现它，并将它纳入你自己的观点中。Challenge yourself to not just listen to each other and hang out on the horizontal plane, but to enter a new dimension.挑战你自己，不只是去“听见”彼此、在同一个平面上交流，而是迈入一个全新的维度。