跟一个无知的人辩论，有可能赢吗?
Is it possible to win an argument against an ignorant person?
译文简介
网友：我总是对人们做出判断和得出结论的速度感到震惊,这有点吓人。在某些情况下，经验会使决定职位的过程更容易一些。然而，我们必须始终对新的事实持开放态度。我们不是没有偏见的客观生物。我们的背景、经验、阶级和其他因素确实会无意识地塑造我们用来感知的“镜头”。这并不意味着我们无法克服它们......
正文翻译
Is it possible to win an argument against an ignorant person?
跟一个无知的人辩论，有可能赢吗?
评论翻译
很赞 ( 0 )
收藏
Alexander Finnegan, 我用电锯修剪灌木
We are not obxtive creatures with no biases. Our backgrounds, our experiences, our class, and other factors do unconsciously shape the “lens” we use to perceive. This does not mean we cannot overcome these. We can, but it is hard work.
politics is the solution to this issue, because the economic system and the political system in which leaders work is bigger than any one individual. We may think there are “great men (or women)” who move history. This is false. We are material beings living in a material world. We interact with the world as it interacts with us. We are shapers and we are shaped. We are not disembodied souls. The modes of production shape the stages of history. Human nature is not fixed. There is room for growth, and for recession. It is organic.
It is hard to suspend our existing sense of belief. Cognitive dissonance feels bad. And it is very hard work to do more than regurgitate what the “authorities” and pundits tell us. We believe we have “choice” by picking Fox News vs MSNBC. This is like picking Coke vs Pepsi. We should look at independent media. We should focus more on what our opponents say than what we already know. You don’t learn by hunkering down in your own position.
我总是对人们做出判断和得出结论的速度感到震惊,这有点吓人。在某些情况下，经验会使决定职位的过程更容易一些。然而，我们必须始终对新的事实持开放态度。
我们不是没有偏见的客观生物。我们的背景、经验、阶级和其他因素确实会无意识地塑造我们用来感知的“镜头”。这并不意味着我们无法克服它们。我们可以，但这是一项艰苦的工作。
政治是解决这一问题的方法，因为领导人工作的经济体系和政治体系比任何个人都重要。我们可能认为有“伟大的男人（或女人）”改变了历史。这是错误的。我们是生活在物质世界中的物质存在。我们与世界互动，就像它与我们互动一样。我们是塑造者，也被塑造。我们不是无实体的灵魂。生产方式决定了历史的各个阶段。人的本性不是一成不变的，有成熟的空间，也有衰退的空间，它是自然的过程。
要打消我们现有的信念是很难的。认知失调让人感觉不好。除了重复“权威”和权威人士告诉我们的东西外，要做更多的工作是非常困难的。我们相信我们有“选择”，选择福克斯新闻或者微软全国有线广播电视公司。这就像选择可口可乐和百事可乐一样。我们应该看看独立媒体。我们应该更多地关注对手说了什么，而不是我们已经知道了什么，你不能在自己的位置上坐以待待。
Human beings are not rational machines. We emote first and rationalize later. Of course, there are some exceptions. You might be different. Most people are driven by primitive and irrational subconscious forces, of which they are largely unaware.
Edward Bernays is the godfather of the propaganda and marketing industry. He used Freudian psychology and applied it to modern day marketing. The results were unbelievable. Turns out, the human mind is very easily persuaded to smoke, buy computers, or even go to war for oligarchs. He was hired by the U.S. government to convince Americans to fight in WWI. He succeeded.
Obama’s campaign for President won the “Marketing Campaign of the Year” award for the “Hope and Change” ad campaign.
I don’t have any illusions that I can convince anyone of anything. I can offer information, but that is all. That is all anyone can do. If someone is obsessed with Qanon conspiracies or whatever there is no reaching them, because they have an emotional connection with their beliefs which I cannot touch. They need to believe in Qanon conspiracies. I will listen to them. I will consider what they are saying. There is always a possibility they are right. Is it probable they are right? Probably not. Qanon “predictions” never seem to come true.
The meaning of their lives depends upon it. And we will fight like hell to maintain the narrative that gives us meaning.
Ultimately, our political beliefs are about our values. I can’t make you have compassion for another person. And you can’t make me disregard the well being of the sick and impoverished regarding universal healthcare to guarantee an inhuman notion of “freedom” from paying taxes. It isn’t going to happen. Ultimately, we will have conflict. The U.S. being ripped apart is this playing out on a larger scale. When there is no middle class, politics becomes more personal. It isn’t about whether we will increase taxes a few percentage points. Then we might discuss it over coffee. The stakes are far higher now. All of this is the result of an economic system which has been played out and is collapsing.
认知科学家错误地告诉我们，人类的思维是如何迅速得出结论的。此外，考虑蒙蒂霍尔问题，所谓的“常识”往往是不真实的。
人类不是理性的机器。我们先情绪化，然后合理化。当然，也有一些例外。你可能不一样。大多数人被原始的、非理性的潜意识力量所驱使，而他们基本上不知道这些力量。
爱德华·伯奈斯是宣传和营销行业的教父。他运用弗洛伊德心理学并将其应用于现代营销。结果令人难以置信。事实证明，人类的大脑很容易被说服吸烟、购买电脑，甚至为寡头开战。他受雇于美国政府，以说服美国人参加第一次世界大战，他成功了。
奥巴马的总统竞选团队凭借“希望与变革”广告活动赢得了“年度营销活动”奖。
我不幻想我能就任何事说服任何人。我可以提供信息，但仅此而已。这是所有人都能做的。如果有人痴迷于卡农的阴谋或其他任何东西，那他们是无法触及的，因为他们与自己的信仰有着情感上的联系，我无法触及。他们需要相信卡农的阴谋。我会听他们说，我会考虑他们在说什么。他们总是有可能是对的。他们可能是对的吗？可能不会。卡农的“预言”似乎永远不会成真。
他们生命的意义取决于此。我们将竭尽全力维护这个叙述赋予我们意义。
归根结底，我们的政治信仰关乎我们的价值观。我不能让你同情别人。你不能让我无视病人和穷人在全民医疗保健方面的福祉，以保证一种不人道的“免税”观念。这是做不到的。最终，我们会有冲突。美国正在分崩离析，这是在更大范围内进行的。当没有中产阶级时，政治变得更加个人化。这不是我们是否将税收提高几个百分点的问题。然后我们可以边喝咖啡边讨论。现在的风险要高得多。所有这一切都是一个经济体系的结果，这个经济体系已经过时，正在崩溃。
Absolutely yes. The only to win is to just walk away, there's a quote. “Its hard to win an argument with a smart person but impossible to win an argument with an idiot” and with my experience this is true.
绝对是的。唯一能赢的方式就是一走了之，有句名言。“与一个聪明人的辩论很难取胜，但与一个白痴进行辩论却不可能取胜”，以我的经验来说，这是真的。
Luis Cuellar, IT专家(2017 -现在)
如果一个人无知是因为他没受过教育，但他愿意学习，这是完全可能的，如果事实支持你的论点，如果一个人的无知是出于他自己的意愿。那么只是走开就好。
Yes. It can be hard though because they always come back with more ignorance. No matter what kind of facts you have, no matter what you say to them, no matter how you point out to them how ignorant they sound, they will always come back with more ignorance. Kanye West is a PRIME example of that.
是的。这可能很难，因为他们总是带着更多的无知。无论你掌握了什么样的事实，无论你对他们说了什么，无论你如何向他们指出他们的话听起来多么无知，他们总是会以更多的无知回应。坎耶·维斯特(Kanye West)就是一个典型的例子。
The mistake is in wanting “to beat” him. You should want to inform him and exchange views but of course his ignorance, by definition is a barrier to understanding and compromise.
错误在于想要“打败”他。你应该告诉他，并交换意见，但他的无知，从定义上来说，是理解和妥协的障碍。
Justin Schwartz，密歇根大学哲学与政治科学博士;剑桥大学历史与科学哲学硕士
你说的是什么意思，在争论中打败别人?你是说，让他们承认你是对的吗?这在任何情况下都是不可能的。不那么无知的人往往有更多的资源可以利用或拒绝让步。只是人们不是这么想的。我这辈子能数到三次当我被某个重要论点说服并承认某一点时，我可能比一般人更愿意接受争论，而不太可能把它视为人身攻击。
“Don't try and teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig.” - Mark Twain
Trying to defeat an ignorant man or woman in an argument is just like trying to teach a pig to sing.
“别想教猪唱歌。”这是浪费你的时间，而且会惹恼猪。——马克·吐温
想在争论中打败一个无知的男人或女人，无异于教一头猪唱歌。
Not always. I've been corrected many times myself and I've always appreciated when someone corrects me.
But one group I found it near impossible to do ANY sort of same resoning with are right wing gutter snipe nationalists of ANY nation or culture. These inbred tampon chewing PMS guzzlers aren't there to debate with you. They just want to whine like they do in front of their slutty mom's
The more polite u r to them, the bigger the gutter third rated rabble rousing clemency writing low life wailin lil whores they become.
When u converse with them in the language I prescribed as in above, they suddenly become more respectful or learn to ignore u ??.
U can reason and talk to anyone other than a right wing
不总是能说赢。我自己也被纠正过很多次，当有人纠正我时，我总是很感激。
但我发现几乎不可能对任何国家或文化的右翼民族主义者做任何相同的推理。这些天生就会咀嚼卫生棉条的经前症候群并不是来和你争论的。他们只是想在自己放荡的妈妈面前发牢骚。
你对他们越有礼貌，就越会成为第三等级的乌合之众。
当你用我上面规定的语言和他们交谈时，他们突然变得更尊重你或者学会忽略你。
除了右翼，你可以和任何人说理和交谈。
Always…. He just won’t know it.
But, on the other hand you may only think you know better then he, and so are simply believing he is ignorant.
The big thing to watch out for is if his ideas bother you. Because they go against what you believe…. But he makes sense. lol
总是，他只是不知道而已。
但是，另一方面，你可能只是认为你比他知道得多，所以只是认为他是无知的。
最重要的是要注意他的想法是否让你烦恼。因为它们与你所相信的完全不同，但他说得有道理，哈哈。
Being that ignorance means the lack of knowledge on a subject. Once the man has been taught and he accepts the truth about it? He is not anymore ignorant. I may love to eat fish but I'm totally ignorant on hand catfish mud fishing. I don't know how to do it and I don't want to learn how!
无知意味着对某一主题缺乏知识。一旦这个人接受了教育并且接受了真相，他不再无知了。我可能喜欢吃鱼，但我对鲶鱼泥钓技术一无所知。我不知道怎么做，也不想学!
Emma Skinner, 前木雕师(2006-2016)
When friendships become fraught because of differing opinions: both parties are letting an argument win and the friendship looses
In arguments that involve opinion - neither can be wrong - all parties have the same entitlement insofar as they MAY BE CORRECT - But then equally - they might not.
If you think this person is ignorant - haven't you won already in your own mind - what is left to prove?
The only ignorant people I've met are the ones who belittle others by thinking they're right and everybody else is stupid
我相信当人们开始争论时，就永远不会有赢家。
当友谊因为不同的观点而变得令人不安时：双方都想在争论中占上风，而友谊却失去了。
在涉及意见的辩论中，两者都不可能是错误的，所有当事人都有同样的权利，只要他们是正确的，但同样的，他们也可能不正确。
如果你认为这个人是无知的——难道你还没有在自己的头脑中赢得胜利吗？还有什么要证明的呢？
我所见过的唯一无知的人是那些认为自己是对的，而其他人都是愚蠢的，从而轻视别人的人。
Selina Paulino，纽约州立大学工商管理硕士
用事实击败无知的人是不可能的:这就是为什么有这么多特朗普的支持者。
Zora Euphoria, 美国人，热爱生活的人。
You have to be prepared to educate someone ignorant on said subject. However, the more you argue the more you lower yourself like the individual you try to avoid being. If your opponent goes low in a conversation or logical debate. Sometimes you might have to give up and let it be because people learn when events/scenarios happen, not by listening to others.
是的,说不过。
你必须准备在这个问题上教育一个无知的人。然而，你争论得越多，你就越贬低自己，就像你试图避免成为的那个人。如果你的对手在对话或逻辑辩论中表现不佳，有时候你可能不得不放弃，顺其自然，因为当事情或场景发生时，人们会从中学到东西，而不是通过听取别人的意见。
Its impossible to convince them both 1. That they are stupid 2. They are wrong . So the answer is in their mind yes you cannot defeat them because they believe they are the smartest person ever to exist.
要同时说服他们是不可能的。他们很愚蠢，他们错了。所以答案是，是的，你不能打败他们，因为他们相信自己是世界上最聪明的人。
Defeating someone is much harder than winning the argument. You can win the argument through logic checks if you have an audience. But, if it is just you and them, there never is really a winner if the other refuses to see logic. If I know my logic is sound, at some point, I just stop arguing and then I will repeat the same answer over and over until the other person gets frustrated and quits talking.
击败某人比赢得争论要难得多。如果你有听众，你可以通过逻辑检查来赢得争论。但是，如果只有你和他们，如果对方拒绝理解逻辑，就不会有真正的赢家。如果我知道我的逻辑是合理的，在某种程度上，我就会停止争论，然后我会一遍又一遍地重复同样的答案，直到另一个人感到沮丧，停止说话。
彼得·威尔科克斯，前警察侦探检查员，商人
Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience… (Or something like that…)
I never bother to google this stuff;
啊，让我想想，听起来像马克·吐温说过一句名言：永远不要和白痴争论，他们会把你拉低到和他们一样的水平，然后用丰富的经验打败你。
我从不费心去做这些事;
Ignorance is often paired with arrogance. You can't defeat such a person in an argument or have an intelligent conversation with them because they're convinced that they're right at all times, ergo, you're always wrong, Don't waste your time on him.
无知常常伴随着傲慢，你不可能在争论中打败这样的人，或与他们进行睿智的对话，因为他们坚信自己永远是对的，因此，你永远是错的，不要在他身上浪费时间。
Mr. Testtubehead, 物理教师(1990年至今)
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
See the Monty Python sketch about purchasing an argument. It's a hilarious example of what most people think passes for a reasoned argument
The only thing I do it's funny as hell his treat the argument with the unreasonable person as a game of improv where you never say no and just run with it until their own logic has been woven around them into a sticky mess and watch them squirm
If they say something like the Jews are conspiring to bring America down. I'll agree with them and point out that the greatest mistake the United States ever made was to let all them Jewish scientists in from Germany to build the atomic bomb for the US and then I'll lament about how dangerous it is that the US has atomic weapons and won the war with them. If that doesn't get them I will continue when they're insistence that Jews have been nothing but a scourge for America and point out that that damn Dr Jonas Salk invented the vaccine to stop polio but he gave it away for free which is one of the worst things ever done to America because they got a commie vaccine.
I had a person tell me once in all honesty that it was a fact that there were no Jews in the world trade center when it went down. Now you have to realize I was baiting and anti-semite
“无知”这个词有点含糊不清。我想你指的是教条主义，可能是一个形容词，一个充满敌意的教条主义者，他在辩论中用大喊大叫来换取证据。
请参阅Monty Python关于购买论证的草图。这是一个滑稽的例子，大多数人认为这是一个合理的论点。
我做的唯一一件事非常有趣，把与不讲理的人的争论当作一场即兴的游戏，你永远不会说不，跟着他思路走就行，直到他们自己的逻辑被编织成黏糊糊的一团，然后看着他们蠕动
如果他们说犹太人密谋搞垮美国。我会同意他们的观点，并指出美国犯下的最大错误是让所有这些来自德国的犹太科学家为美国制造原子弹，然后我会感叹美国拥有原子武器并赢得了与他们的战争是多么危险。如果他们坚持认为犹太人只不过是美国的祸害，我会继续说下去，并指出那个该死的乔纳斯·索尔克博士发明了疫苗来阻止小儿麻痹症，但他免费赠送，这是对美国做过的最糟糕的事情之一，因为他们得到了共产主义疫苗。
我让一曾经有个人非常诚实地告诉我，当世贸中心倒下的时候里面没有犹太人这一事实，现在你必须意识到我是在抛诱饵和反犹太主义。
弗雷德·麦加利德，波音公司前退休科学家
You can leave these people on for hours but at some point some of them will start to become less supportive of The logical extension of the idiot argument.
If they tell me Noah's ark was literal I get all bummed out and get upset and I'll point out to them. That God let countless species go extinct because when the Lions got off the ark , doesn't that mean every time they had a meal it was an extinction level event? Then I start having them help me try to compute how many species we lost just from the Lions alone. The Noah's ark one I can go on for hours with them until they're at the point that they want to get away.
So I would treat these people as if you were an improv artist and just run with everything they say .
我建议讨论而不是争论。追求真理和理解，而不是追求胜利。狡辩可能会掩盖真相，然后像癌症侵蚀你的知识和智慧一样。
你可以让这些人待上几个小时，但在某个时候，他们中的一些人会开始变得不那么支持白痴论点的逻辑延伸。
如果他们告诉我诺亚方舟是真的，我会感到非常沮丧和不安，我会向他们指出。上帝让无数物种灭绝，因为当狮子离开方舟时，这不是意味着每次他们吃饭都是一件灭绝级别的事件吗？然后我开始让他们帮我计算，仅仅是因为狮子，我们就失去了多少物种。诺亚方舟，我可以和他们一起走上几个小时，直到他们想离开。
所以我会把这些人当成一个即兴表演艺术家，照他们说的做。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处