Start learning this lesson now

TED-Ed, How can you change someone's mind? (hint: facts aren't always enough) - Hugo Mer

How can you change someone's mind? (hint: facts aren't always enough) - Hugo Mer

Three people are at a dinner party. 00:09 Paul, who's married, is looking at Linda. 00:12 Meanwhile, Linda is looking at John, who's not married. 00:17 Is someone who's married looking at someone who's not married? 00:20 Take a moment to think about it. 00:24 Most people answer that there's not enough information to tell. 00:28 And most people are wrong. 00:30 Linda must be either married or not married—there are no other options. 00:34 So in either scenario, someone married is looking at someone who's not married. 00:40 When presented with the explanation, most people change their minds 00:43 and accept the correct answer, 00:44 despite being very confident in their first responses. 00:48 Now let's look at another case. 00:49 A 2005 study by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler 00:53 examined American attitudes regarding the justifications for the Iraq War. 00:58 Researchers presented participants with a news article 01:01 that showed no weapons of mass destruction had been found. 01:05 Yet many participants not only continued to believe that WMDs had been found, 01:10 but they even became more convinced of their original views. 01:14 So why do arguments change people's minds in some cases and backfire in others? 01:20 Arguments are more convincing when they rest on a good knowledge of the audience, 01:25 taking into account what the audience believes, 01:27 who they trust, 01:28 and what they value. 01:31 Mathematical and logical arguments like the dinner party brainteaser work 01:35 because even when people reach different conclusions, 01:38 they're starting from the same set of shared beliefs. 01:41 In 1931, a young, unknown mathematician named Kurt Gödel presented a proof 01:47 that a logically complete system of mathematics was impossible. 01:51 Despite upending decades of work by brilliant mathematicians 01:54 like Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert, 01:56 the proof was accepted 01:58 because it relied on axioms that everyone in the field already agreed on. 02:02 Of course, many disagreements involve different beliefs 02:06 that can't simply be reconciled through logic. 02:08 When these beliefs involve outside information, 02:11 the issue often comes down to what sources and authorities people trust. 02:16 One study asked people to estimate several statistics 02:19 related to the scope of climate change. 02:22 Participants were asked questions, 02:24 such as “how many of the years between 1995 and 2006 02:29 were one of the hottest 12 years since 1850?” 02:33 After providing their answers, 02:35 they were presented with data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 02:39 in this case showing that the answer was 11 of the 12 years. 02:44 Being provided with these reliable statistics from a trusted official source 02:48 made people more likely to accept the reality that the earth is warming. 02:52 Finally, for disagreements that can't be definitively settled 02:56 with statistics or evidence, 02:58 making a convincing argument 03:00 may depend on engaging the audience's values. 03:03 For example, researchers have conducted a number of studies 03:07 where they've asked people of different political backgrounds 03:10 to rank their values. 03:12 Liberals in these studies, on average, rank fairness— 03:15 here meaning whether everyone is treated in the same way—above loyalty. 03:20 In later studies, researchers attempted to convince liberals 03:24 to support military spending with a variety of arguments. 03:28 Arguments based on fairness— 03:30 like that the military provides employment 03:32 and education to people from disadvantaged backgrounds— 03:35 were more convincing than arguments based on loyalty— 03:39 such as that the military unifies a nation. 03:41 These three elements— 03:44 beliefs, trusted sources, and values— 03:47 may seem like a simple formula for finding agreement and consensus. 03:51 The problem is that our initial inclination is to think of arguments 03:55 that rely on our own beliefs, trusted sources, and values. 03:59 And even when we don't, 04:00 it can be challenging to correctly identify what's held dear 04:04 by people who don't already agree with us. 04:07 The best way to find out is simply to talk to them. 04:10 In the course of discussion, 04:11 you'll be exposed to counter-arguments and rebuttals. 04:14 These can help you make your own arguments and reasoning more convincing 04:19 and sometimes, you may even end up being the one changing your mind.

How can you change someone's mind? (hint: facts aren't always enough) - Hugo Mer |||||||||||Hugo Mer|Mer (1) Wie kann man die Meinung von jemandem ändern? (Hinweis: Fakten sind nicht immer genug) - Hugo Mer How can you change someone's mind? (hint: facts aren't always enough) - Hugo Mer ¿Cómo hacer cambiar de opinión a alguien? (pista: los hechos no siempre son suficientes) - Hugo Mer Comment faire changer d'avis quelqu'un ? (indice : les faits ne suffisent pas toujours) - Hugo Mer Come si può far cambiare idea a qualcuno? (suggerimento: i fatti non sono sempre sufficienti) - Hugo Mer どうすれば人の心を変えることができるのか？(ヒント：事実は必ずしも十分ではない） - Hugo Mer 어떻게 하면 사람의 마음을 바꿀 수 있을까요? (힌트: 사실만으로는 충분하지 않습니다) - Hugo Mer Kaip galite pakeisti kieno nors nuomonę? (užuomina: faktų ne visada pakanka) - Hugo Mer Jak zmienić czyjeś zdanie? (podpowiedź: fakty nie zawsze są wystarczające) - Hugo Mer Como você pode mudar a opinião de alguém? (dica: os fatos nem sempre são suficientes) - Hugo Mer Как вы можете изменить чье-то мнение? (подсказка: фактов не всегда достаточно) — Хьюго Мер Birinin fikrini nasıl değiştirebilirsiniz? (ipucu: gerçekler her zaman yeterli değildir) - Hugo Mer Як можна змінити чиюсь думку? (підказка: фактів не завжди достатньо) - Гуго Мер 你怎样才能改变别人的想法？（提示：事实并不总是足够的）- Hugo Mer 你怎樣才能改變別人的想法？（提示：事實並不總是足夠的）- Hugo Mer

Three people are at a dinner party. Three people are at a dinner party. Три человека на званом обеде. 00:09 Paul, who’s married, is looking at Linda. 00:09 Пол, который женат, смотрит на Линду. 00:12 Meanwhile, Linda is looking at John, who’s not married. 00:17 Is someone who’s married looking at someone who’s not married? 00:17 Кто-то, кто женат, смотрит на того, кто не женат? 00:20 Take a moment to think about it. 00:20 Подумайте об этом. 00:24 Most people answer that there’s not enough information to tell. 00:24 A maioria das pessoas responde que não há informações suficientes para contar. 00:24 Большинство людей отвечают, что информации недостаточно. 00:28 And most people are wrong. 00:28 E a maioria das pessoas está errada. 00:28 И большинство людей ошибаются. 00:30 Linda must be either married or not married—there are no other options. 00:30 Linda deve ser casada ou não - não há outras opções. 00:34 So in either scenario, someone married is looking at someone who’s not married. 00:34 En ambos casos, alguien casado mira a alguien que no lo está. 00:34 Em ambos os cenários, alguém casado está olhando para alguém que não é casado. 00:34 Тож у будь-якому випадку одружений дивиться на незаміжнього. 00:40 When presented with the explanation, most people change their minds 00:43 and accept the correct answer, 00:44 despite being very confident in their first responses. 00:40 Cuando se les presenta la explicación, la mayoría de las personas cambian de opinión 00:43 y aceptan la respuesta correcta, 00:44 a pesar de estar muy seguros de sus primeras respuestas. 00:40 Quando apresentada a explicação, a maioria das pessoas muda de ideia 00:43 e aceita a resposta correta, 00:44 apesar de estar muito confiante em suas primeiras respostas. 00:48 Now let’s look at another case. 00:49 A 2005 study by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler 00:53 examined American attitudes regarding the justifications for the Iraq War. ||||Nyhan||Reifler|Reifler(1)|||||||||| 00:49 Дослідження 2005 року, проведене Бренданом Найханом і Джейсоном Рейфлером 00:53 вивчало американське ставлення до виправдання війни в Іраку. 00:58 Researchers presented participants with a news article 01:01 that showed no weapons of mass destruction had been found. 00:58 Los investigadores presentaron a los participantes un artículo de prensa 01:01 que mostraba que no se habían encontrado armas de destrucción masiva. 00:58 Os pesquisadores apresentaram aos participantes um artigo de notícias 01:01 que mostrava que nenhuma arma de destruição em massa havia sido encontrada. 00:58 Дослідники представили учасникам статтю 01:01, яка показала, що зброї масового знищення не було знайдено. 01:05 Yet many participants not only continued to believe that WMDs had been found, 01:10 but they even became more convinced of their original views. |||||||||Massenvernichtungswaffen||||||||||||| 01:05 No entanto, muitos participantes não apenas continuaram a acreditar que as armas de destruição em massa haviam sido encontradas, 01:10 mas também ficaram mais convencidos de suas opiniões originais. 01:05 Проте багато учасників не тільки продовжували вірити, що зброю масового знищення було знайдено, 01:10 вони навіть стали більш переконаними у своїх початкових поглядах. 01:14 So why do arguments change people’s minds in some cases and backfire in others? 01:14 Então, por que as discussões mudam a opinião das pessoas em alguns casos e saem pela culatra em outros? 01:14 Тож чому суперечки в одних випадках змінюють думку людей, а в інших дають зворотний результат? 01:20 Arguments are more convincing when they rest on a good knowledge of the audience, 01:25 taking into account what the audience believes, 01:27 who they trust, 01:28 and what they value. 01:20 Os argumentos são mais convincentes quando se baseiam em um bom conhecimento do público, 01:25 levando em consideração o que o público acredita, 01:27 em quem eles confiam, 01:28 e o que eles valorizam. 01:20 Аргументи переконливіші, коли спираються на добре знання аудиторії, 01:25 беручи до уваги те, у що аудиторія вірить, 01:27 кому довіряє, 01:28 і що цінує. 01:20 當他們充分了解觀眾時，論證會更有說服力， 01:25 考慮到觀眾的信念， 01:27 他們信任誰， 01:28 以及他們看重什麼。 01:31 Mathematical and logical arguments like the dinner party brainteaser work 01:35 because even when people reach different conclusions, 01:38 they’re starting from the same set of shared beliefs. ||||||||Rätsel||||||||||||||||| ||||||||rompecabezas||||||||||||||||| 01:31 Argumentos matemáticos e lógicos como o quebra-cabeças do jantar funcionam 01:35 porque mesmo quando as pessoas chegam a conclusões diferentes, 01:38 elas estão partindo do mesmo conjunto de crenças compartilhadas. 01:31 Математичні та логічні аргументи, як головоломка на вечері, спрацьовують 01:35 тому що навіть коли люди приходять до різних висновків, 01:38 вони виходять із однакових спільних переконань. 01:41 In 1931, a young, unknown mathematician named Kurt Gödel presented a proof 01:47 that a logically complete system of mathematics was impossible. ||||||Kurt|Gödel|||||||||||| 01:41 У 1931 році молодий невідомий математик на ім'я Курт Гедель представив доказ 01:47 того, що логічно повна система математики була неможливою. 01:51 Despite upending decades of work by brilliant mathematicians 01:54 like Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert, 01:56 the proof was accepted 01:58 because it relied on axioms that everyone in the field already agreed on. |overturning||||||||Bertrand Russell||||David Hilbert|||||||||Axiome|||||||| 01:51 Obwohl er jahrzehntelange Arbeit brillanter Mathematiker 01:54 wie Bertrand Russell und David Hilbert in Frage stellte, 01:56 wurde der Beweis akzeptiert, 01:58 weil er sich auf Axiome stützte, über die sich alle Fachleute bereits einig waren. 01:51 Незважаючи на десятиліття роботи блискучих математиків 01:54 таких як Бертран Рассел і Девід Гільберт, 01:56 доказ було прийнято 01:58 тому що воно спиралося на аксіоми, з якими всі в цій галузі вже погодилися. 01:51 儘管顛覆了伯特蘭·羅素和大衛·希爾伯特等傑出數學家數十年的工作01:54 01:56 證明還是被接受了01:58 因為它依賴於該領域每個人都已經同意的公理。 02:02 Of course, many disagreements involve different beliefs 02:06 that can’t simply be reconciled through logic. |||||||||||versöhnt werden|| |||||||||||和解された|| 02:02 Звичайно, багато розбіжностей пов'язані з різними переконаннями, 02:06 які не можна просто узгодити за допомогою логіки. 02:08 When these beliefs involve outside information, 02:11 the issue often comes down to what sources and authorities people trust. 02:16 One study asked people to estimate several statistics 02:19 related to the scope of climate change. 02:16 Одне дослідження попросило людей оцінити кілька статистичних даних, 02:19 пов'язаних із масштабами зміни клімату. 02:16 一項研究要求人們估計與氣候變遷範圍相關的多項統計數據 02:19。 02:22 Participants were asked questions, 02:24 such as “how many of the years between 1995 and 2006 02:29 were one of the hottest 12 years since 1850?” 02:33 After providing their answers, 02:35 they were presented with data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 02:39 in this case showing that the answer was 11 of the 12 years. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||zwischenstaatlichen||||||||||||||| 02:22 參與者被問到一些問題， 02:24 例如“1995 年至 2006 年間有多少年是 1850 年以來最熱的 12 年之一？” 02:33 提供答案後， 02:35 他們收到了政府間氣候變遷專門委員會的數據， 02:39 在本例中顯示答案是 12 年中的 11 年。 02:44 Being provided with these reliable statistics from a trusted official source 02:48 made people more likely to accept the reality that the earth is warming. 02:52 Finally, for disagreements that can’t be definitively settled 02:56 with statistics or evidence, 02:58 making a convincing argument 03:00 may depend on engaging the audience’s values. ||||||definitiv|||||||||||||||Werte| 02:52 Bei Meinungsverschiedenheiten, die nicht durch Statistiken oder Beweise endgültig geklärt werden können, 02:58 kann eine überzeugende Argumentation 03:00 davon abhängen, die Werte des Publikums anzusprechen. 02:52 Нарешті, щодо розбіжностей, які неможливо остаточно вирішити 02:56 за допомогою статистики чи доказів, 02:58 наведення переконливих аргументів 03:00 може залежати від залучення цінностей аудиторії. 02:52 最後，對於無法透過統計數據或證據最終解決的分歧 02:56 02:58 提出令人信服的論點 03:00 可能取決於聽眾的價值觀。 03:03 For example, researchers have conducted a number of studies 03:07 where they’ve asked people of different political backgrounds 03:10 to rank their values. 03:03 Наприклад, дослідники провели низку досліджень, 03:07 де вони просили людей різного політичного походження 03:10 оцінити свої цінності. 03:03 例如，研究人員進行了多項研究 03:07 他們要求不同政治背景的人 03:10 對他們的價值觀進行排名。 03:12 Liberals in these studies, on average, rank fairness— 03:15 here meaning whether everyone is treated in the same way—above loyalty. 03:12 Ліберали в цих дослідженнях в середньому ставлять справедливість— 03:15 тут це означає те, чи до всіх ставляться однаково, вище лояльності. 03:12 平均而言，這些研究中的自由主義者將公平排名—— 03:15 這裡的意思是每個人是否都受到同樣的方式對待——高於忠誠。 03:20 In later studies, researchers attempted to convince liberals 03:24 to support military spending with a variety of arguments. |||||||Liberale||||||||| 03:20 У пізніших дослідженнях дослідники намагалися переконати лібералів 03:24 підтримувати військові витрати різними аргументами. 03:20 在後來的研究中，研究者試圖用各種論點說服自由主義者 03:24 支持軍事開支。 03:28 Arguments based on fairness— 03:30 like that the military provides employment 03:32 and education to people from disadvantaged backgrounds— 03:35 were more convincing than arguments based on loyalty— 03:39 such as that the military unifies a nation. 03:28 Аргументы, основанные на справедливости - 03:30 например, что армия обеспечивает работой 03:32 и образованием людей из неблагополучных семей - 03:35 были более убедительными, чем аргументы, основанные на лояльности - 03:39 например, что армия объединяет нацию. 03:28 基於公平的論點—— 03:30 例如軍隊為弱勢群體提供就業機會和教育—— 03:35 比基於忠誠的論點更有說服力—— 03:39 例如軍隊統一了國家。 03:41 These three elements— 03:44 beliefs, trusted sources, and values— 03:47 may seem like a simple formula for finding agreement and consensus. 03:41 這三個要素── 03:44 信念、可信來源和價值觀── 03:47 似乎是尋找一致和共識的簡單公式。 03:51 The problem is that our initial inclination is to think of arguments 03:55 that rely on our own beliefs, trusted sources, and values. ||||||Neigung||||||||||||||| 03:51 Проблема в том, что изначально мы склонны придумывать аргументы 03:55, которые опираются на наши собственные убеждения, надежные источники и ценности. 03:51 Проблема в тому, що наша початкова схильність полягає в тому, щоб думати про аргументи, 03:55 які спираються на наші власні переконання, надійні джерела та цінності. 03:51 問題在於，我們最初的傾向是思考依賴我們自己的信念、可信來源和價值觀的論點 03:55。 03:59 And even when we don’t, 04:00 it can be challenging to correctly identify what’s held dear 04:04 by people who don’t already agree with us. 03:59 そうでない場合でも、04:00 私たちと同じ意見を持っていない人たちが何を大切にしているかを正しく認識するのは難しいことだ。 03:59 І навіть коли ми цього не робимо, 04:00 нам може бути складно правильно визначити, що дорожить 04:04 людьми, які ще не згодні з нами. 03:59 即使我們不同意， 04:00 正確識別那些尚未同意我們觀點的人所珍惜的東西也可能具有挑戰性 04:04 。 04:07 The best way to find out is simply to talk to them. 04:07 找出答案的最好方法就是與他們交談。 04:10 In the course of discussion, 04:11 you’ll be exposed to counter-arguments and rebuttals. ||||||||||||risposte 04:10 У ході обговорення 04:11 ви натрапите на контраргументи та спростування. 04:10 在討論過程中， 04:11 你會遇到反駁和反駁。 04:14 These can help you make your own arguments and reasoning more convincing 04:19 and sometimes, you may even end up being the one changing your mind. 04:14 這些可以幫助你讓自己的論點和推理更有說服力 04:19 有時，你甚至可能最終成為改變主意的人。