Jonathan Haidt: Yeah.

克里斯·安德森： 所以，強，這感覺蠻可怕的。

CA: It feels like the world is in a place

強納森海特：是啊。

that we haven't seen for a long time.

克：目前世界感覺像是在一種

People don't just disagree in the way that we're familiar with,

我們很久沒有經歷過的狀態。

on the left-right political divide.

人們不只是以我們熟悉的方式

There are much deeper differences afoot.

不認同左派右派的政治分裂，

What on earth is going on, and how did we get here?

還有更深的歧異在發生中。

JH: This is different.

這到底是怎麼回事， 而我們又是怎麼走到這一步？

There's a much more apocalyptic sort of feeling.

強：這次是不一樣，

Survey research by Pew Research shows

好像有大災難要降臨的感覺。

that the degree to which we feel that the other side is not just --

皮尤研究中心的調查研究顯示，

we don't just dislike them; we strongly dislike them,

我們對另一方的感覺不只是…

and we think that they are a threat to the nation.

我們不只是不喜歡他們； 我們很強烈地不喜歡他們。

Those numbers have been going up and up,

而且我們認為他們是對國家的威脅。

and those are over 50 percent now on both sides.

這些數字不斷在上升，

People are scared,

雙方的數字都已經高過 50%。

because it feels like this is different than before; it's much more intense.

人們很恐懼，

Whenever I look at any sort of social puzzle,

因為這個感覺和以往不同； 比以前更強烈。

I always apply the three basic principles of moral psychology,

當我在看任何一種社會難題時，

and I think they'll help us here.

我都是應用道德心理學的 三項基本原則，

So the first thing that you have to always keep in mind

我認為在這裡也能有幫助。

when you're thinking about politics

在思考政治問題時， 你一定要謹記的第一件事是

is that we're tribal.

我們都有部落性格。

We evolved for tribalism.

我們靠部落意識演化至今。

One of the simplest and greatest insights into human social nature

關於人類的社會天性， 最簡單且最偉大的名言

is the Bedouin proverb:

是一句貝多因諺語：

"Me against my brother;

「我對抗我的兄弟；

me and my brother against our cousin;

我和我的兄弟一起 對抗我們的表兄弟；

me and my brother and cousins against the stranger."

我和我的兄弟和表兄弟們 一起對抗陌生人。」

And that tribalism allowed us to create large societies

那個部落意識使我們 創造出大型社會，

and to come together in order to compete with others.

使我們結合在一起來與其他人抗爭。

That brought us out of the jungle and out of small groups,

它使我們脫離叢林、脫離小團體，

but it means that we have eternal conflict.

但那意味著我們永遠會有衝突。

The question you have to look at is:

你需要探討的問題是：

What aspects of our society are making that more bitter,

我們社會的哪些面向 使這些衝突更激烈，

and what are calming them down?

哪些能使衝突平靜下來？

CA: That's a very dark proverb.

克：那是個非常黑暗的諺語。

You're saying that that's actually baked into most people's mental wiring

你的意思是，實際上那是大部份人 天生就或多或少具有的心理面？

at some level?

強：喔，絕對是。這只是 人類社會認知的一個基本面向。

JH: Oh, absolutely. This is just a basic aspect of human social cognition.

但，我們也能 非常和平地住在一起，

But we can also live together really peacefully,

而且我們發明了各種 有趣的活動，例如玩戰爭遊戲…

and we've invented all kinds of fun ways of, like, playing war.

我是指運動、政治…

I mean, sports, politics --

我們以這些方式來 體現我們的部落天性，

these are all ways that we get to exercise this tribal nature

而不會真正傷到任何人。

without actually hurting anyone.

我們也很擅長貿易、 探索、認識新人。

We're also really good at trade and exploration and meeting new people.

所以你要知道我們的部落意識 是會上下起伏的，

So you have to see our tribalism as something that goes up or down --

而不是我們注定會一直彼此對抗，

it's not like we're doomed to always be fighting each other,

永遠不會有世界和平。

but we'll never have world peace.

克：部落的大小可以縮小或擴大。

CA: The size of that tribe can shrink or expand.

強：是的。

JH: Right.

克：我們所認定的「我們」、

CA: The size of what we consider "us"

以及我們所認定的 「其他人」或「他們」，

and what we consider "other" or "them"

大小都可能會改變。

can change.

有些人相信，這個過程 可能無限期地持續下去。

And some people believed that process could continue indefinitely.

強：沒錯。

JH: That's right.

克：我們的確持續在擴展這個部落。

CA: And we were indeed expanding the sense of tribe for a while.

強：所以，我認為，

JH: So this is, I think,

我們應該要去了解 可能有種新的左右派區別。

where we're getting at what's possibly the new left-right distinction.

我們大家目前承襲的左右派觀念

I mean, the left-right as we've all inherited it,

來自勞方對抗資方，

comes out of the labor versus capital distinction,

勞動階級和馬克思主義。

and the working class, and Marx.

但我認為我們現在越來越會看到

But I think what we're seeing now, increasingly,

所有西方民主的分化，

is a divide in all the Western democracies

一端是觀念止於國家的人，

between the people who want to stop at nation,

比較具有地方觀念的人…

the people who are more parochial --

我沒有任何負面的意思…

and I don't mean that in a bad way --

更有紮根觀念的人，

people who have much more of a sense of being rooted,

他們關心他們的鎮、 他們的社區、他們的國家。

they care about their town, their community and their nation.

另一端則是反地方觀念的人，

And then those who are anti-parochial and who --

每當我搞混時，我就想 約翰藍儂的歌「想像」：

whenever I get confused, I just think of the John Lennon song "Imagine."

「想像沒有國家， 沒有殺戮或戰死的理由。」

"Imagine there's no countries, nothing to kill or die for."

所以這些人想要比較全球性的治理，

And so these are the people who want more global governance,

他們不喜歡分國家、 他們不喜歡邊界。

they don't like nation states, they don't like borders.

你在歐洲也到處都能看到。

You see this all over Europe as well.

有個名字叫莎士比亞的 偉大的比喻家

There's a great metaphor guy -- actually, his name is Shakespeare --

十年前在英國寫作，

writing ten years ago in Britain.

他有個比喻：

He had a metaphor:

「我們把開合橋向上拉 或是向下放？」

"Are we drawbridge-uppers or drawbridge-downers?"

那時英國人在那點的比例 是 52 對 48。

And Britain is divided 52-48 on that point.

美國對這點也是分化的。

And America is divided on that point, too.

克：所以，我們這些 和披頭四一起長大的人，

CA: And so, those of us who grew up with The Beatles

有著嬉皮哲學， 夢想著比較連結的世界，

and that sort of hippie philosophy of dreaming of a more connected world --

覺得很理想，且認為「怎麼 可能有人會把它做負面解讀？」

it felt so idealistic and "how could anyone think badly about that?"

你說的是，其實，

And what you're saying is that, actually,

現今有數百萬人 覺得那不只是愚蠢；

millions of people today feel that that isn't just silly;

還是危險且錯誤的， 並且他們對此感到恐懼。

it's actually dangerous and wrong, and they're scared of it.

強：我認為…特別是在歐洲， 但這裡也是一樣…

JH: I think the big issue, especially in Europe but also here,

重要議題是移民問題。

is the issue of immigration.

我認為在此我們得要非常小心

And I think this is where we have to look very carefully

去看待關於多樣化 與移民的社會科學。

at the social science about diversity and immigration.

任何事一旦被政治化，

Once something becomes politicized,

一旦變成是左派喜歡、而右派…

once it becomes something that the left loves and the right --

甚至社會科學家對此 也無法清楚地思考。

then even the social scientists can't think straight about it.

多樣化在很多方面是好事。

Now, diversity is good in a lot of ways.

它顯然創造了更多的創新，

It clearly creates more innovation.

美國經濟因為它而大大成長。

The American economy has grown enormously from it.

多樣性和移民帶來很多好處。

Diversity and immigration do a lot of good things.

但，全球主義者看不到，

But what the globalists, I think, don't see,

他們也不想看到的是，

what they don't want to see,

種族多樣性會削減 社會資本和互相的信任。

is that ethnic diversity cuts social capital and trust.

羅勃·普南有一個非常重要的研究，

There's a very important study by Robert Putnam,

他是《獨自打保齡球》的作者，

the author of "Bowling Alone,"

這研究探究了社會資本資料庫。

looking at social capital databases.

基本上，越多人認為他們是相同的，

And basically, the more people feel that they are the same,

他們越信任彼此，

the more they trust each other,

他們就會成為財富重新分配的國家。

the more they can have a redistributionist welfare state.

斯堪的納維亞國家如此美好

Scandinavian countries are so wonderful

是因為它們一直保有著 同質的小國家傳統，

because they have this legacy of being small, homogenous countries.

使它們持續進步成為福利國家，

And that leads to a progressive welfare state,

擁有一組進步的左傾價值觀，吶喊著：

a set of progressive left-leaning values, which says,

「把開合橋放下來！ 世界是個很棒的地方。

"Drawbridge down! The world is a great place.

敘利亞的人民在受苦， 我們必須歡迎他們進來。」

People in Syria are suffering -- we must welcome them in."

那是件很美好的事。

And it's a beautiful thing.

但，如果今年夏天我在瑞典，

But if, and I was in Sweden this summer,

如果這說法在瑞典 是相當政治正確的，

if the discourse in Sweden is fairly politically correct

而且他們無法談論不利面，

and they can't talk about the downsides,

結果你就會帶進很多人。

you end up bringing a lot of people in.

那將會削減社會資本，

That's going to cut social capital,

就很難仍是福利國家，

it makes it hard to have a welfare state

他們可能最後會和美國一樣，

and they might end up, as we have in America,

成為種族分化、 明顯可見的種族分化的社會。

with a racially divided, visibly racially divided, society.

所以談論這些讓人很不舒服。

So this is all very uncomfortable to talk about.

但我認為，特別是歐洲， 我們也是，要正視這個議題。

But I think this is the thing, especially in Europe and for us, too,

但我認為，特別是歐洲，我們也是， 要正視這個議題。

we need to be looking at.

克：你是說，那些理性的人，

CA: You're saying that people of reason,

自認為不是種族主義者，

people who would consider themselves not racists,

而是有道德、正直的人，

but moral, upstanding people,

有理由可以說，人類就是太不同了；

have a rationale that says humans are just too different;

以致於若把太不同的人混合在一起，

that we're in danger of overloading our sense of what humans are capable of,

我們可能要面對不知道 人們會做出什麼的危險。

by mixing in people who are too different.

強：是的，但我可以 把它說得更容易明白。

JH: Yes, but I can make it much more palatable

分化不一定與種族有關。 它與文化有關。

by saying it's not necessarily about race.

有位名為凱倫·史坦納得政治科學家 做了一項很棒的研究。

It's about culture.

這個研究指出當人們覺得

There's wonderful work by a political scientist named Karen Stenner,

我們全都團結一致， 我們都一樣，

who shows that when people have a sense

就會有很多人本來傾向於 專制獨裁主義。

that we are all united, we're all the same,

當這些人覺得當我們的社會 與道德秩序似乎不會受到威脅時，

there are many people who have a predisposition to authoritarianism.

他們不見得是種族主義者。

Those people aren't particularly racist

但如果你實驗性地先讓他們

when they feel as through there's not a threat

認為我們逐漸在分化， 人們越來越不同，

to our social and moral order.

那時他們會比較有種族主義、 仇視同性戀，要把異類趕出去。

But if you prime them experimentally

所以在這部分會有獨裁主義的反應。

by thinking we're coming apart, people are getting more different,

那些堅持藍儂主義路線的左派──

then they get more racist, homophobic, they want to kick out the deviants.

約翰·藍儂路線──

So it's in part that you get an authoritarian reaction.

會做出造成獨裁主義反應的事。

The left, following through the Lennonist line --

我們在美國的另類右派看到這現象。

the John Lennon line --

我們在英國看到， 我們在歐洲各處都看到這個現象。

does things that create an authoritarian reaction.

但比較正面的部份是，

We're certainly seeing that in America with the alt-right.

我認為本土派份子， 或國家主義者，其實是對的。

We saw it in Britain, we've seen it all over Europe.

如果你強調我們的文化相似性，

But the more positive part of that

種族其實沒那麼重要。

is that I think the localists, or the nationalists, are actually right --

所以用社會同化的方式處理移民， 能消除很多這些問題。

that, if you emphasize our cultural similarity,

所以用社會同化的方式處理移民， 能消除很多這些問題。

then race doesn't actually matter very much.

如果你想要有個慷慨的福利國家，

So an assimilationist approach to immigration

你必須強調我們都是一樣的。

removes a lot of these problems.

克：好，所以目前分化的成因之一

And if you value having a generous welfare state,

是越來越多移民， 以及人們對此狀況的恐懼。

you've got to emphasize that we're all the same.

其他成因是什麼？

CA: OK, so rising immigration and fears about that

強：道德心理學的下一個原則

are one of the causes of the current divide.

是人們的直覺會先發生， 然後策略性推理才跟進。

What are other causes?

你可能聽過「動機性推理」

JH: The next principle of moral psychology

或「確認偏誤」這些詞。

is that intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.

有個很有趣的研究在探討

You've probably heard the term "motivated reasoning"

我們的高度智慧以及言語能力

or "confirmation bias."

可能演化成不是協助我們找到真相，

There's some really interesting work

而是協助我們操弄彼此、 捍衛我們的名聲…

on how our high intelligence and our verbal abilities

我們非常非常擅長爲自己辯護。

might have evolved not to help us find out the truth,

當你把群體利益納入考量，

but to help us manipulate each other, defend our reputation ...

那就不只是我一人， 而是我的團隊對抗你的團隊，

We're really, really good at justifying ourselves.

在評估證明你那一方錯的證據時，

And when you bring group interests into account,

我們就是無法接受。

so it's not just me, it's my team versus your team,

這就是為什麼 在政治爭執中你贏不了。

whereas if you're evaluating evidence that your side is wrong,

如果你在辯論某事，

we just can't accept that.

你不可能以理由和證據說服對方，

So this is why you can't win a political argument.

因為推理不是這樣運作的。

If you're debating something,

現在，我們有互聯網、 有 Google：

you can't persuade the person with reasons and evidence,

「我聽說歐巴馬在肯亞出生， 讓我 Google 一下。

because that's not the way reasoning works.

天啊！點閱率有千萬！那就是真的！」

So now, give us the internet, give us Google:

克：所以對很多人來說， 這是不愉快的驚喜。

"I heard that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

社交媒體常常被 科技樂觀主義者給塑造成

Let me Google that -- oh my God! 10 million hits! Look, he was!"

一股能讓人們團結的偉大動力。

CA: So this has come as an unpleasant surprise to a lot of people.

但它也造成了一些未預期的反效果。

Social media has often been framed by techno-optimists

強：是的。這就是為什麼我很喜歡

as this great connecting force that would bring people together.

以陰陽和左右來 分析人類天性的觀點──

And there have been some unexpected counter-effects to that.

每一方都對某些事有正確的看法，

JH: That's right.

但他們對其他事是盲目的。

That's why I'm very enamored of yin-yang views

所以一般來說左派相信人性本善：

of human nature and left-right --

團結、拆除圍牆，一切就會很好；

that each side is right about certain things,

一般來說，右派── 社會保守派、非自由主義者，

but then it goes blind to other things.

相信人們很貪婪、性衝動、自私，

And so the left generally believes that human nature is good:

我們需要規定，我們需要限制。

bring people together, knock down the walls and all will be well.

所以，是的，如果你拆了所有圍牆，

The right -- social conservatives, not libertarians --

讓全世界的人能夠溝通，

social conservatives generally believe people can be greedy

你會得到很多色情片和種族主義。

and sexual and selfish,

克：請爲我們澄清一下。 這些人類天性…

and we need regulation, and we need restrictions.

本來就一直存在。

So, yeah, if you knock down all the walls,

到底是哪些改變 加深了這個分化的感覺？

allow people to communicate all over the world,

強：這裡有六到十條 不同的脈絡匯集在一起，

you get a lot of porn and a lot of racism.

我就只談其中幾條。

CA: So help us understand.

在美國， 其實應該說在美國與歐洲，

These principles of human nature have been with us forever.

最重大的一條就是第二次大戰。

What's changed that's deepened this feeling of division?

約翰·漢里克與其他人 做了個有趣的研究，

JH: You have to see six to ten different threads all coming together.

研究指出，如果你的國家正在打仗，

I'll just list a couple of them.

特別是在你年輕的時候，

So in America, one of the big -- actually, America and Europe --

在三十年後讓你做公共困境測驗

one of the biggest ones is World War II.

或是囚徒困境測驗，

There's interesting research from Joe Henrich and others

你會比較合作。

that says if your country was at war,

因為部落的天性，如果你…

especially when you were young,

在二次大戰時， 我的父母還是青少年，

then we test you 30 years later in a commons dilemma

他們會出去尋找廢棄鋁製物，

or a prisoner's dilemma,

以協助戰爭。

you're more cooperative.

大家同心協力。

Because of our tribal nature, if you're --

這些人長大成人後，

my parents were teenagers during World War II,

他們在事業上及政府機關內

and they would go out looking for scraps of aluminum

取得領導級的位置。

to help the war effort.

他們非常擅長妥協與合作。

I mean, everybody pulled together.

到了 90 年代他們都退休了。

And so then these people go on,

90 年代末期，我們就只有 嬰兒潮時代出生的人，

they rise up through business and government,

他們的年輕時光 都花在自己國家的內部抗爭。

they take leadership positions.

那是在 1986 年及那以後。

They're really good at compromise and cooperation.

所以，失去二戰大戰世代， 即「最偉大的世代」的損失

They all retire by the '90s.

非常大。

So we're left with baby boomers by the end of the '90s.

這是其一。

And their youth was spent fighting each other within each country,

在美國，另一條脈絡是兩黨派的淨化。

in 1968 and afterwards.

他們以前是開放的共和黨員 及保守的民主黨員。

The loss of the World War II generation, "The Greatest Generation,"

所以在二十世紀中期， 美國是真的兩黨化的。