3.3Appreciate the art of thoughtfuldisagreement.
欣赏深思熟虑的不同思维的艺术
When two people believeopposite things, chances are that one of them is wrong. It pays to find out ifthat someone is you. That’s why I believe you must appreciate and develop theart of thoughtful disagreement. In thoughtful disagreement, your goal is not toconvince the other party that you are right—it is to find out which view istrue and decide what to do about it. In thoughtful disagreement, both partiesare motivated by the genuine fear of missing important perspectives. Exchangesin which you really see what the other person is seeing and they really seewhat you are seeing—with both your “higher-level yous” trying to get to thetruth—are immensely helpful and a giant source of untapped potential.
To do this well, approach theconversation in a way that conveys that you’re just trying to understand.26Use questions rather than makestatements. Conduct the discussion in a calm and dispassionate manner, andencourage 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 bereasonable. If you’re calm, collegial, and respectful you will do a lot betterthan if you are not. You’ll get better at this with practice.
To me, it’s pointless when people getangry with each other when they disagree because most disagreements aren’tthreats as much as opportunities for learning. People who change their mindsbecause they learned something are the winners, whereas those who stubbornlyrefuse to learn are the losers. That doesn’t mean that you should blindlyaccept others’ conclusions. You should be what I call open-minded and assertiveat the same time—you should hold and explore conflicting possibilities in yourmind while moving fluidly toward whatever is likely to be true based on whatyou learn. Some people can do this easily while others can’t. A good exerciseto make sure that you are doing this well is to describe back to the person youare 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 timeto get all their thoughts out.
Some people worry that operating this wayis time consuming. Working through disagreements does take time but it’s justabout the best way you can spend it. What’s important is that you prioritizewhat you spend time on and who you spend it with. There are lots of people whowill disagree with you, and it would be unproductive to consider all theirviews. It doesn’t pay to be open-minded with everyone. Instead, spend your timeexploring ideas with the most believable people you have access to.
If you find you’re at an impasse, agreeon 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 goingon, which most people are prone to do—or wasting time disagreeing past thepoint of diminishing returns. When that happens, move on to a more productiveway of getting to a mutual understanding, which isn’t necessarily the samething as agreement. For example, you might agree to disagree.
Why doesn’t thoughtful disagreement likethis typically occur? Because most people are instinctively reluctant todisagree. For example, if two people go to a restaurant and one says he likesthe food, the other is more likely to say “I like it too” or not say anythingat all, even if that’s not true. The reluctance to disagree is the “lower-levelyou’s” mistaken interpretation of disagreement as conflict. That’s why radicalopen-mindedness isn’t easy: You need to teach yourself the art of havingexchanges in ways that don’t trigger such reactions in yourself or others. Thiswas what I had to learn back when Bob, Giselle, and Dan told me I made peoplefeel belittled.
Holding wrong opinions inone’s head and making bad decisions based on them instead of having thoughtfuldisagreements is one of the greatest tragedies of mankind. Being able tothoughtfully disagree would so easily lead to radically improved decisionmaking in all areas—public policy, politics, medicine, science, philanthropy,personal relationships, and more.
当两人相信相反的事物，机会就在于其中一个是错误的。代价就是发现错的人是你。那也是为甚我相信你必须欣赏并培养不同思考的艺术。深思熟虑的不同意见，你的目标不是说服对的一方—发现那方正确并决定接下来做什么。两方都会因为害怕错过重要的观点而选择屈服。将你真正看到对方看到的 和他们看到你正在看的交换-有了这两者，“更高层次的你”努力尝试发现真相—会非常有帮助，并且是一个巨大的未被探听的潜在优势。
想要做好这些，用你努力尝试理解的方式传达对话。用问题而不是称述。用平静和冷静的方式进行讨论，鼓励他人也这么做。记住，你不是在争执；你是在开放探索真相。合理并期待他人也合理。如果你冷静，学术，尊重你将比不这样做的好的多。你会得到更好的结果。
对我而言，当人们遭遇不一致时通常会愤怒，但这是毫无意义的，因为大多数不同意见并不是学习机会的威胁。人们通常会从胜利者哪里改变自己的想法，那些顽固拒绝学习的人会成为失败者。这并不意味着盲目结束他人的结论。你应当同时像我说的那样公开，自信—你应当坚守并探索冲突的想法，同时基于所学顺滑过度到真相。有些人能轻易做到，而有些不行。一项确保你能做好此项的训练是与不同意见的复盘活动。如果他们同意了你的成果，你会处于有利情形。我也推荐两方关注“20分钟规则”—既不会打断其他人，同时还能将他们所有的想法挖掘出来。
一些人会担心这样操作是浪费时间。与不同意见工作的确会消耗时间但确实你能依靠的最佳方式。重要的是你可以优先决定耗费的事物和对象。一定有大量不同意见的人，而判断所有观点是非常低效的。完全公开并不花费太多。相反与众多相信的人一起花费时间探索观点才花费精力。
如果你发现处于僵局，对于一个你即尊敬又支持他们帮助缓和讨论。真正困扰你的是接下来该怎么办？这也是大多数人容易做的—或者浪费时间争执很少回报的观点。如果发生，更加理智的理解应该通过更加有效的方法，而不必与协议一样。举例，你可能会与反对方达成一致。
为什么深思熟虑的反方通常不会这样发生？因为大多数人本能的对反对不舒服。举例，如果两人去餐馆，一个人说喜欢美食，另一个多半会说“我也喜欢”或者根本不说什么，即使不是真实情况。对反方不舒服的是“低层次的你”，反方的错误解释是重复。这也就是为什么彻底完全公开并不容易的原因：你需要教会自己自由切换而不引起这些反应的能力。这也是我后来返回教给bob，吉赛尔的东西，但后来告诉我让人感觉被。
持有错误观点并基于这些作出坏的决定，而不是拥有深思熟虑的反方意见是人类最大的悲剧。能深思熟虑的反对可能很容易并导致彻底促进决策制定—公共政策，政治，医学，科学，哲学，个人关系还有很多都是这样。
a.baid��w�礠
