Paul, who's married, is looking at Linda.

已經結婚的保羅，正看著琳達。

Meanwhile, Linda is looking at John, who's not married.

與此同時，琳達正看著約翰，他還沒有結婚。

Is someone who's married looking at someone who's not married?

結了婚的人是不是看上了沒結婚的人？

Take a moment to think about it.

花點時間想一想。

Most people answer that there's not enough information to tell.

大多數人的回答是，信息量不夠，無法判斷。

And most people are wrong.

而大多數人都錯了。

Linda must be either married or not married—there are no other options.

琳達必須要麼結婚要麼不結婚--沒有其他選擇。

So in either scenario, someone married is looking at someone who's not married.

所以無論哪種情況，結婚的人都是看上了沒結婚的人。

When presented with the explanation, most people change their minds

當得到解釋時，大多數人都會改變主意。

and accept the correct answer,

並接受正確答案。

despite being very confident in their first responses.

儘管他們對自己的第一次回答非常自信。

Now let's look at another case.

現在我們再來看另一個案例。

A 2005 study by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler

2005年Brendan Nyhan和Jason Reifler的一項研究。

examined American attitudes regarding the justifications for the Iraq War.

研究了美國人對伊拉克戰爭理由的態度。

Researchers presented participants with a news article

研究人員向參與者展示了一篇新聞文章

that showed no weapons of mass destruction had been found.

顯示沒有發現大規模毀滅性武器。

Yet many participants not only continued to believe that WMDs had been found,

然而，許多與會者不僅繼續認為已經發現了大規模毀滅性武器。

but they even became more convinced of their original views.

但他們甚至更加堅信自己原來的觀點。

So why do arguments change people's minds in some cases and backfire in others?

那麼，為什麼有些情況下，爭論會改變人們的想法，而有些情況下卻會適得其反呢？

Arguments are more convincing when they rest on a good knowledge of the audience,

爭論建立在對聽眾有充分了解的基礎上，才更有說服力。

taking into account what the audience believes,

考慮到觀眾的看法。

who they trust,

他們信任誰。

and what they value.

以及他們所看重的東西。

Mathematical and logical arguments like the dinner party brainteaser work

數理邏輯論證，如晚宴腦筋急轉彎的工作原理

because even when people reach different conclusions,

因為即使人們得出不同的結論。

they're starting from the same set of shared beliefs.

他們從同一套共同的信念出發。

In 1931, a young, unknown mathematician named Kurt Gödel presented a proof

1931年，一個年輕的、不知名的數學家庫爾特-哥德爾提出了一個證明。

that a logically complete system of mathematics was impossible.

一個邏輯上完整的數學體系是不可能的。

Despite upending decades of work by brilliant mathematicians

儘管顛覆了傑出數學家幾十年來的研究成果

like Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert,

如伯特蘭-羅素和大衛-希爾伯特。

the proof was accepted

證據確鑿

because it relied on axioms that everyone in the field already agreed on.

因為它所依賴的公理是該領域的所有人都已經同意的。

Of course, many disagreements involve different beliefs

當然，很多分歧涉及到不同的信仰

that can't simply be reconciled through logic.

不能簡單地通過邏輯來調和。

When these beliefs involve outside information,

當這些信念涉及外部資訊時。

the issue often comes down to what sources and authorities people trust.

這個問題往往歸結於人們信任什麼來源和權威。

One study asked people to estimate several statistics

有一項研究要求人們估計幾個統計數據

related to the scope of climate change.

與氣候變化的範圍有關；

Participants were asked questions,

與會者被問到了一些問題。

such as “how many of the years between 1995 and 2006

如 "在1995年至2006年期間，有多少年是這樣的

were one of the hottest 12 years since 1850?”

是1850年以來最熱的12年之一？"

After providing their answers,

在提供了他們的答案之後。

they were presented with data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

他們收到了政府間氣候變化專門委員會的數據。

in this case showing that the answer was 11 of the 12 years.

在本案中顯示，答案是12年中的11年。

Being provided with these reliable statistics from a trusted official source

從值得信賴的官方來源獲得了這些可靠的統計數據

made people more likely to accept the reality that the earth is warming.

使人們更容易接受地球變暖的現實。

Finally, for disagreements that can't be definitively settled

最後，對於不能明確解決的分歧問題。

with statistics or evidence,

有統計數據或證據；

making a convincing argument

說服力

may depend on engaging the audience's values.

可能取決於是否能吸引閱聽人的價值觀。

For example, researchers have conducted a number of studies

例如，研究人員進行了一些研究

where they've asked people of different political backgrounds

在那裡，他們問不同政治背景的人。

to rank their values.

以對其價值進行排序。

Liberals in these studies, on average, rank fairness—

在這些研究中，自由主義者平均將公平性排在

here meaning whether everyone is treated in the same way—above loyalty.

這裡的意思是大家是否受到同樣的待遇--高於忠誠。

In later studies, researchers attempted to convince liberals

在後來的研究中，研究人員試圖說服自由主義者

to support military spending with a variety of arguments.

以各種理由支持軍費。

Arguments based on fairness—

基於公平性的論點----

like that the military provides employment

像軍隊提供就業

and education to people from disadvantaged backgrounds—

弱勢背景的人接受教育的機會----

were more convincing than arguments based on loyalty—

比基於忠誠的論點更有說服力。

such as that the military unifies a nation.

如：軍隊統一了一個國家。

These three elements—

這三個要素--

beliefs, trusted sources, and values—

信念、可信的來源和價值觀

may seem like a simple formula for finding agreement and consensus.

這似乎是一個尋找協議和共識的簡單公式。

The problem is that our initial inclination is to think of arguments

問題是，我們最初的傾向是認為論點

that rely on our own beliefs, trusted sources, and values.

依靠我們自己的信念、可信的來源和價值觀。

And even when we don't,

即使我們不這樣做。

it can be challenging to correctly identify what's held dear

辨別真偽是個難題

by people who don't already agree with us.

被那些還不認同我們的人。

The best way to find out is simply to talk to them.

最好的方法就是簡單地與他們交談。

In the course of discussion,

在討論過程中。

you'll be exposed to counter-arguments and rebuttals.

你會接觸到反駁和反駁。

These can help you make your own arguments and reasoning more convincing

這些可以幫助你使自己的論點和推理更有說服力。

and sometimes, you may even end up being the one changing your mind.

有時，你甚至可能最終成為改變主意的人。