YOU CAN’T WIN AN ARGUMENT

Shortly after the close of World War I, I learned an invaluable lesson one night in London. I was manager at the time for Sir Ross Smith. During the war, Sir Ross had been the Australian ace out in Palestine; and shortly after peace was declared, he astonished the world by flying hallway around it in thirty days. No such feat had ever been attempted before. It created a tremendous sensation. The Australian government awarded him fifty thousand dollars; the King of England knighted him; and, for a while, he was the most talked-about man under the Union Jack. I was attending a banquet one night given in Sir Ross’s honor; and during the dinner, the man sitting next to me told a humorous story which hinged on the quotation “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will.”

你无法赢得争论

一次大战结束后不久，在伦敦的一天晚上我学到了极宝贵的一课。 当时，我是罗斯·史密斯爵士的经理。战争期间，罗斯爵士曾是澳大利亚在巴勒斯坦的王牌；而且在宣布和平后不久，他在三十天内绕着它飞了一圈，震惊了世界。之前从未有人尝试过这样的壮举。他引起了极大轰动。澳大利亚政府奖励他五万美元；英格兰国王封他为爵士；一段时间，他是英格兰国旗下最受关注的人。一天晚上我正在参加由罗斯爵士举办的宴会，而就在晚宴期间，坐在我旁边的那个男士讲了一个他引述的幽默故事“存在一种塑造了我们结局的神性，无论我们如何粗暴地雕琢它们也无济于事。”

The raconteur mentioned that the quotation was from the Bible. He was wrong. I knew that. I knew it positively. There couldn’t be the slightest doubt about it. And so, to get a feeling of importance and display my superiority, I appointed myself as an unsolicited and unwelcome committee of one to correct him. He stuck to his guns. What? From Shakespeare? Impossible! Absurd! That quotation was from the Bible. And he knew it.

那位健谈者提及，那段引述来自《圣经》。他错了。我知道这点。我绝对知道这点。对此没有丝毫的怀疑。因此，就获得了一种重要感，并展示我的优越感，我将自己当作了一个不请自来和不受欢迎的委员会来纠正他。他坚持他的信念。什么？源自莎士比亚？不可能！荒谬！那段引述来自《圣经》。他了解它。

The storyteller was sitting on my right; and Frank Gammond, an old friend of mine, was seated at my left. Mr. Gammond had devoted years to the study of Shakespeare. So the storyteller and I agreed to submit the question to Mr. Gammond. Mr. Gammond listened, kicked me under the table, and then said: “Dale, you are wrong. The gentleman is right. It is from the from the Bible.”

讲故事者坐在我的右边；弗兰克·伽蒙，一位我的老友坐在我的左边。伽蒙先生多年致力于研究莎士比亚。这样，讲故事者和我都同意将问题提交伽蒙先生。伽蒙先生听了，在桌下踢我，然后说：“戴尔，你错了。这位先生是对的。它是源自《圣经》。”

On our way home that night, I said to Mr. Gammond: “Frank, you know that quotation was form Shakespeare.”

晚上，在我们回家的路上，我对伽蒙先生说：“弗兰克，你知道那引述是来自莎士比亚。”

“Yes, of course,” he replied, “Hamlet, Act Five, Scene Two. But we were gests at a festive occasion, my dear Dale. Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you？why not let him save his face? He didn’t ask for your opinion. He didn’t want it. Why argue with him? Always avoid the acute angle.” The man who said that taught me a lesson I’ll never forget. I not only had made the storyteller uncomfortable, but had put my friend in an embarrassing situation. How much better it would have been had I not become argumentative.

“是的，当然知道，”他回答道，“哈姆莱特，第五幕，第二场。但我们是喜庆场合的客人，我亲爱的戴尔。为什么要证明一个人他错了呢？是要让他喜欢你吗？为什么不让他留点脸面呢？他并没有请求你的观点。他不想那样。为什么要与他争论呢？永远要避免锐角。”说这些话的人给我上了一堂我永远都不会忘记的课。我不仅使讲故事者不舒服，而且也使我的朋友陷入了尴尬境地。如果我没有变得好争辩，那该多好呵。

It was a sorely needed lesson because I had been an inveterate arguer. During my youth, I had argued with my brother about everything under the Milky Way. When I went to college, I studied logic and argumentation and went in for debating contests. Talk about being from Missouri, I was born there. I had to be shown. Later, I taught debating and argumentation in New York; and once, I am ashamed to admit, I planned to write a book on the subject. Since then, I have listened to, engaged in, and watched the effect of thousands of arguments. As a result of all this, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one way under high heaven to get the best of an argument—and that is to avoid it. Avoid it as you would avoid rattlesnakes and earthquakes.

这是一次非常需要的教训，因为我一直是一个成癖的争论者。在我年轻时，我曾与我的兄弟争论过在银河系下的一切。当我上了大学，我学习了逻辑和辩论，并且参加了辩论赛。谈论来自密苏里州，我出生那里。我不得不展示出来。后来，我在纽约教辩论和论证。从那时起，我一直在倾听、参与，并观看了数千次争论的效果。由于所有的这一切，我得出结论，在高远的天空之下，获得最佳争论的唯一方法—就是避免争论。避免它，就像你会避免响尾蛇和地震一样。

Nine times out of ten, an argument ends with each of the contestants more firmly convinced than ever that he is absolutely right.

十有八九，当争论结束时，每个争论者都会比以往更加坚信他是绝对的正确。

You can’t win an argument. You can’t because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? Well, suppose you triumph over the other man and shoot his argument full of holes and prove that he is non compos mentis. Then what? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph. And—

你无法赢得争论。你无法，是因为，如果你输了争论，你就是输了；而如果你赢了争论，你还是输了。为什么呢？好吧，假设你战胜了另一个人，将他的论点驳得漏洞百出，并证明他是心智不健全的人。然后呢？你会感觉良好。但考虑他的吗？你使他感到了自卑。你伤害了他的自尊。他会怨恨你的获胜。还有—

                   A man convinced against his will

                      Is of the same opinion still.

                   一个违背其愿望的人

                   依然会持同样的观点。

Years ago Patrick J. O’Haire joined one of my classes. He had had little education, and how he loved a scrap! He had once been a chauffeur, and he came to me because he had been trying, without much success, to sell trucks. A little questioning brought out the fact that he was continually scrapping with and antagonizing the very people he was trying to do business with. If a prospect said anything derogatory about the trucks he was selling, Pat saw red and was right at the customer’s throat. Pat won a lot of arguments in those days. As he said to me afterward, “I often walked out of an office saying: ‘I told that bird something.’ Sure I had told him something, but I hadn’t sold him anything.”

几年前，帕特里克 J. 奥海尔加入了我的一个班级。他几乎没有受过什么教育，而且他很喜欢与人发生小口角！他曾经是一名司机，而他来找我是因为他一直在尝试销售卡车，但没有多大的成功。稍加询问就发现了真相，他频繁地试图与同他做生意的许多人发生口角和对抗。如果潜在的客户说了有关他销售的卡车任何贬低的话，帕特就会变得愤怒，并立刻怼回去。帕特在那些日子里赢得许多争论。正如他后来对我说的那样，“我常常走出办公室说着：‘我告诉了那家伙一些事。‘当然，我已经告诉了他一些事情，但我没有卖给他任何东西。’

My first problem was not to teach Patrick J. O’Haire to talk. My immediate task was to train him to refrain from talking and to avoid verbal fights.

我的第一个问题不是教帕特里克 J. 奥海尔谈话。我的当务之急是训练他克制和避免口头争吵。

Mr. O’Haire became one of the star salesmen for the White Motor Company in New York. How did he do it? Here is his story in his own words: “if I walk into a buyer’s office now and he says: ‘What? A White truck? They’re no good! I wouldn’t take one if you gave it to me, I’m going to buy the Whose-It truck, ‘I say, ‘The Whose-It is a good truck. If you buy the Whose-It, you’ll never make a mistake. The Whose-Its are made by a fine company and sold by good people.’

奥海尔先生成为了纽约怀特汽车公司的一位明星销售员。他是如何做到的？这里是用他自己的话讲的故事：“如果我现在走进一家买主的办公室，而他说：“什么？怀特卡车？它们不好！如果你把它给我，我不会接受的，我要买胡雪公司的卡车，‘我说，这个牌子的卡车不错。如果你买胡雪公司的卡车，你永远不会犯错误。胡雪公司的卡车由一家优秀公司制造，并由好人销售。’

“He is speechless then. There is no room for an argument. If he says the Whose-It is best and I say sure it is, he has to stop. He can’t keep on all afternoon saying, ‘It’s the best’ when I’m agreeing with him. We then get off the subject of Whose-It and I begin to talk about the good points of the White truck.

“那时他就无话可说。没有了争论的余地。如果他说胡雪公司是最好的，我说它肯定是，他就不得不停止。当我赞同他时，他就无法整个下午都在说，‘它是最好的’。然后我们就避开了胡雪公司的话题，而我开始谈论起怀特卡车的优点。

“There was a time when a remark like his first one would have made me see scarlet and red and orange. I would start arguing against the Whose-It; and the more I argued against it, the more my prospect argued in favor of it; and the more he argued, the more he sold himself on my competitor’s product.

“曾经有段时间，当像他第一句话那样的评论会让我的险涨得通红和发怒。我会开始反驳胡雪公司；而我越反驳它，喜欢它的预期争论就越多；而我争论的越多，在我的竞争对手的产品上，他销售自己的产品就越多。

“As I look back now I wonder how I was ever able to sell anything. I lost years of my life in scrapping and arguing. I keep my mouth shut now. It pays”

“当我现在回想来，我想知道我是如何能卖出东西的。在口角和争论中我失去了我生命中的许多岁月。我现在不再开口了。很划算。”

As wise old Ben Frankling used to say:

正如明智的老本·富兰克林曾经说过那样：

      If your argue and rankle and contradict, you may achieve a victory sometime; but it will be an empty victory because you will never get your opponent’s good will.

        如果你争论、怨恨和反驳，你可能会在某时取得胜利；但它会是一种无意义的胜利，因为你永远不会获得你对手的善意。

So figure it out for yourself. Which would you rather have, an academic, theatrical victory or a person’s good will? You can seldom have both.

所以自己弄清楚吧。你愿意拥有哪个，学术上或戏剧上的胜利，还是一个人的善意？你几乎无法两者兼得。

The Boston Transcript once printed this bit of significant doggerel:

《波士顿纪录报》曾经刊印过这段重要的顺口溜：

        Here lies the body of William Jay,

         Who died maintaining his right of way—

         He was right, dead right, as he sped along,

         But he’s just as dead as if he were wrong.

          威廉·杰伊的躯壳躺在这里，

他为了维护自己的通行权而死--

他是对的，完全正确，正如他一路飞驰，

但他也一样死了，好像他错了一样。

You may be right, dead right, as you speed along in your argument; but as far as changing another’s mind is concerned, you will probably be just as futile as if you were wrong.

你可能正确，完全正确，正如你在争论中飞驰；但就改变他人关注的想法而言，你或许会像你错了一样徒劳无功。

Frederick S. Parsons, an income tax consultant, had been disputing and wrangling for an hour with a government tax inspector. An item of nine thousand dollars was at stake. Mr. Parsons claimed that this nine thousand dollars was in reality a bad debt, that it would never be collected, that it ought not to be taxed. “Bad debt, my eye!” retorted the inspector. “It must be taxed.”

弗里德里克 S. 帕森斯，一位所得税顾问，曾与一位政府税务稽查员争论和争吵了一个小时。一个九千美元的项目岌岌可危。帕森斯先生声称，这九千美元事实上是一笔坏账，永远都收不回了，因此不该征税。“坏账，岂有此理！”稽查员反驳道。“必须征税。“

“This inspector was cold, arrogant and stubborn,” Mr. Parsons said as he told the story to the class. “Reason was wasted and so were facts.... The longer we argued, the more stubborn he became. So I decided to avoid argument, change the subject, and give him appreciation.

“这位稽查员冷漠、自大且固执，”帕森斯先生在向全班讲述这个故事时说。“理性被浪费了，事实也被浪费了... . 我们争论的越久，他会变得越固执。因此，我决定避免争论，换个话题，给他点理解。

“I said, ‘I suppose this is a very petty matter in comparison with the really important and difficult decisions you’re required to make. I’ve made a study of taxation myself. But I’ve had to get my knowledge from books. You are getting yours from the firing line of experience. I sometimes wish I had a job like yours. It would teach me a lot.’ I meant every word I said.

“我说，‘我猜想与你需要做出的真正重要和困难的决定相比，这是一件并不重要的事情。我自己也也曾研究过税收。但我一直是从书本中获得知识。你是从第一线的实践中获得的。有时，我真希望能有一份像你一样的工作。它会教会我许多东西。’我说的每句话都是认真的。

“Well. The inspector straightened up in his chair, leaned back, and talked for a long time about his work, telling me of the clever frauds he had uncovered. His tone gradually became friendly, and presently he was telling me about his children. As he left, he advised me that he would consider my problem further and give me his decision in a few days.

“嗯，稽查员在椅子上直起身子，向后靠了靠，谈了很多有关他工作的事情，告诉了我他曾发现的狡猾的欺诈行为。他的语气逐渐变得友好起来，并且很快向我讲述起他的孩子们。当他离开时，他告知我，他会进一步考虑我的问题，并且过几天告诉我他的决定。

“He called at my office three days later and informed me that he had decided to leave the tax return exactly as it was filed.”

“三天后，他打电话到我的公办室并通知我，他已决定保留纳税申请表的原样。”

This tax inspector was demonstrating one of the most common of human frailties. He wanted a feeling of importance; and as long as Mr. Parsons argued with him, he got his feeling of importance by loudly asserting his authority. But as soon as his importance was admitted and the argument stopped and he was permitted to expand his ego, he became a sympathetic and kindly human being.

这位稽查员证明了人类最常见的弱点之一。他需要一种重要感；只要帕森斯先生同他争论，他就会通过大声主张他的权威来获得重要感。但只要他的重要性被承认，争论就会停止，而承认他就扩大了他的自我，他就变成了一位有同情心和亲切的人。

Buddha said: “Hatred is never ended by hatred but by love,” and a misunderstanding is never ended by an argument but by tact, diplomacy, conciliation and a sympathetic desire to see the other person’s viewpoint.

佛陀说：“憎恨永远无法用憎恨来结束，但用爱可以，”还有，误解永远无法用争论来结束，而是用得体、策略、安抚以及渴望看到他人观点的同情来结束。

Lincoln once reprimanded a young army officer for indulging in a violent controversy with an associate. “No man who is resolved to make the most of himself,” said Lincoln, “can spare time for personal contention. Still less can he afford to take the consequences, including the vitiation of his temper and the loss of self-control. Yield larger things to which you show no more than equal rights; and yield lesser ones though clearly your own. Better give your path to a dog than be bitten by him in contesting for the right. Even killing the dog would not cure the bite.”

林肯曾经因一位年轻军官沉迷于与伙伴的剧烈争论而训斥了他。林肯说道，“没人能下定决心充分地利用自己，抽出空闲时间来进行个人争吵。他更不能承担包括损害其情绪和丧失自制力的后果。让出更大的东西，你展示的不过是平等的权利；而虽然放弃了一些次要的东西，显然是你自己的。在竞争权利时，相比被狗咬一口，更好的办法是给它让出一条道。即使杀了那只狗也治愈不了咬伤。“

In an article in Bits and Pieces, some suggestions are made on how to keep a disagreement from becoming an argument:

在《点点滴滴》的一篇文章中，给出了如何防止分歧变成争论的一些建议：

Welcome the disagreement. Remember the slogan, “When two partners always agree, one of them is not necessary.” If there is some point you haven’t thought about, be thankful if it is brought to your attention. Perhaps this disagreement is our opportunity to be corrected before you make a serious mistake.

      欢迎分歧。记住这句标语，“当两个伙伴总是一致时，就不需要他们中的一个人了”如果有些事你没有想过，如果它引起了你的注意，就心存感激吧。也许这种分歧是我们的，在你犯严重错误前得以改正的机会。

 

Distrust your first instinctive impression. Our first natural reaction in a disagreeable situation is to be defensive. Be careful. Keep calm and watch out for your first reaction. It may be you at your worst, not your best.

      别相信你的第一印象。在不愉快的情况下，我们的第一天然反应是防御性的。要小心。保持冷静并小心提防你的第一反应。它可能是你处于最糟糕的状态，而不是最佳状态。

 

Control your temper. Remember, you can measure the size of a person by what makes him or her angry.

       控制你的情绪。记住，你可以通过使他或她生气来判定一个人的气量。

 

Listen first. Give your opponents a chance to talk. Let them finish. Do not resist, defend or debate. This only raises barriers. Try to build bridges of understanding. Don’t build higher barriers of misunderstanding.

      先听。给你的对手一个说话的机会。让他说完。不要抗拒、防御或辩论。这样只会增加障碍。尝试去建立理解的桥梁。不要建立更高的误解障碍。

 

Look for areas of agreement. When you have heard your opponents out, dwell first on the points and areas on which you agree.

        寻找达成一致的领域。当你听到对手偏离了话题时，首先保住你赞同的观点和邻域。

 

Be honest. Look for areas where you can admit error and say so. Apologize for your mistakes. It will help disarm your opponents and reduce defensiveness.

      坦诚。寻找你能在何处承认错误并这么说的领域。为你的错误道歉。它会帮助你消除你对手的敌意和减少防御。

 

Promise to think over your opponents’ ideas and study them carefully. And mean it. Your opponents may be right. It is a lot easier at this stage to agree to think about their points than to move rapidly ahead and find yourself in a position where your opponents can say: “We tried to tell you, but you wouldn’t listen.”

      承诺考虑你对手的想法并仔细地研究它们。而且是认真的。你的对手可能是对的。在这个阶段，同意考虑他们的观点相比迅速前进并发现自己处于你的对手可能会说：“我们尝试告诉你，但你却不愿听。”要容易得多。

 

Postpone action to give both sides time to think through the problem. Suggest that a new meeting be held later that day or the next day, when all the facts may be brought to bear. In preparation for this meeting, ask yourself some hard questions:

       推迟行动，给双方时间来考虑问题。建议当天晚些时候或第二天举行一次新的会面，那时可以证实所有事实。在准备这次会面时，要问自己一些棘手的问题。

 

Could my opponents be right? Partly right? Is there truth or merit in their position or argument? Is my reaction one that will relieve the problem, or will it just relieve any frustration? Will my reaction drive my opponents further away or draw them closer to me? Will my reaction elevate the estimation good people have of me? Will I win or lose? What price will I have to pay if I win? If I am quiet about it, will the disagreement blow over? Is this difficult situation an opportunity for me?

我的对手是对的吗？或部分是对的？他们的立场或争论有事实或长处吗？我的反应会缓解问题，或者它只会缓解了什么挫败感？我的反应会让我的对手离得更远，还是把他们拉得更近？我的反应会提升好人对我的尊敬吗?我会赢还是输？如果我赢了，我必须付出什么代价？如果我保持沉默，分歧会过去吗？这种困难的情况对我是一个机会吗？

PRINCIPLE 1

 

                                                                                                  2024年8月17日译

（译者注：该文译自2010年版《How to Win Friends & Influence People》，戴尔·卡耐基著）