卡耐基演講·五、演講一開(kāi)始就保持友好的態(tài)度

一位無(wú)神論者向威廉·巴利挑戰(zhàn)，要巴利證明無(wú)神主張的錯(cuò)誤。巴利非常安詳?shù)啬贸霰韥?lái)，打開(kāi)了表盒說(shuō)：“如果我告訴你，這些小桿、小輪、彈簧是自己做成自己，再把自己拼湊在一起，并開(kāi)始轉(zhuǎn)動(dòng)的，你是不是要懷疑我的智慧？當(dāng)然你一定會(huì)。但是抬頭瞧瞧那些星星。它們顆顆都有自己完美而特定的軌道和運(yùn)行方式——地球與行星們圍繞著太陽(yáng)，每天在太陽(yáng)的引領(lǐng)下以160余萬(wàn)公里的速度運(yùn)行。那些星星顆顆都是另一個(gè)太陽(yáng)，各領(lǐng)自己的世界，在太空里和我們的太陽(yáng)系一樣往前奔去，卻不必?fù)?dān)心會(huì)相互碰撞、干擾或者混亂，一切安靜、有效，而且有控制。這樣的現(xiàn)象，你相信它們是自己發(fā)生的，還是有人將它造成如此的？”An atheist once challenged William Paley to disprove his contention that there was no Supreme Being. Very quietly Paley took out his watch, opened the case, and said: if I were to tell you that those levers and wheels and springs made themselves and fitted themselves together and started running on their own account, wouldn't you question my intelligence? Of course, you would. But look up at the stars. Every one of them has its perfect appointed course and motion-the earth and planets around the sun, and the whole group pitching along at more than a million miles a day. Each star is another sun with its own group of worlds, rushing on through space like our own solar system. Yet there are no collisions, no disturbance, no confusion. All quiet, efficient, and controlled. Is it easier to believe that they just happened or that someone made them so?"

如果他一開(kāi)始就反駁說(shuō)：“沒(méi)有神？別再像驢子般倔了，你根本不知道自己在胡說(shuō)些什么?！苯Y(jié)果會(huì)怎樣？一定是引起一場(chǎng)咬文嚼字的大戰(zhàn)，根本無(wú)益。那位無(wú)神論者可能會(huì)一怒而起，瘋狂死命地為自己的意見(jiàn)而戰(zhàn)，像只被激怒的山貓。因?yàn)榫拖駣W佛斯錐博士說(shuō)的一樣，它們是他的意見(jiàn)，他珍貴而不可缺的自尊受了威脅，他的驕傲已岌岌可危，所以他就要反抗到底了。Suppose he had retorted to his antagonist at the outset: "No God? Don't be a silly ass. You don't know what you are talking about." What would have happened? Doubtlessly a verbal joust-a wordy war would have ensued, as futile as it was fiery. The atheist would have risen with an unholy zeal upon him to fight for his opinions with all the fury of a wildcat. Why? Because, as Professor Overstreet has pointed out, they were his opinions, and his precious, indispensable self-esteem would have been threatened; his pride would have been at stake.

驕傲既然是人性中一個(gè)基本而且容易被引燃的特性，如果聰明的話，是不是應(yīng)該讓一個(gè)人的驕傲為我們所用，而不是去和它作對(duì)？怎樣做呢？照巴利的樣子，展示給我們的對(duì)手看，讓他感覺(jué)到，我們建議的與他已經(jīng)相信的某些事情其實(shí)也很相似，這樣就會(huì)讓他容易接受，而不是拒我們于千里之外，避免相反或?qū)α⒌睦砟钤谒^腦里滋生，來(lái)破壞我們的講演。Since pride is such a fundamentally explosive characteristic of human nature, wouldn't it be the part of wisdom to get a man's pride working for us, instead of against us? How? By showing, as Paley did, that the thing we propose is very similar to something that our opponent already believes. That renders it easier for him to accept than to reject your proposal. That prevents contradictory and opposing ideas from arising in the mind to vitiate what we have said.

巴利細(xì)心地展示了他對(duì)別人的尊重，然而大多數(shù)人都缺少這種能耐，能夠和對(duì)方攜手進(jìn)入對(duì)方信仰的城堡中。很多人錯(cuò)誤地認(rèn)為，要攻占城堡，只有對(duì)它猛轟，把它夷為平地?？蛇@會(huì)有什么結(jié)果呢？敵意一旦產(chǎn)生，吊橋即刻收起，大門(mén)緊閉，身披盔甲的弓箭手拉開(kāi)了長(zhǎng)弓——頭破血流的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)上場(chǎng)。而逞勇斗狠之后，總以平手結(jié)束，因?yàn)闆](méi)有任何一方可以說(shuō)服對(duì)方一丁點(diǎn)兒。Paley showed delicate appreciation of how the human mind functions. Most men, however, lack this subtle ability to enter the citadel of a man's beliefs arm in arm with the owner. They erroneously imagine that in order to take the citadel-they must storm it, batter it down by a frontal attack. What happens? The moment hostilities commence, the drawbridge is lifted, the great gates are slammed and bolted, the mailed archers draw their long bows-the battle of words and wounds is on. Such frays always end in a draw; neither has convinced the other of anything.

我現(xiàn)在推薦的這種方法其實(shí)并不新穎，它很早就被圣徒保羅所采用。他在以斯山上對(duì)雅典人做的著名演講就使用了它——而且非常熟練，即使經(jīng)過(guò)了19個(gè)世紀(jì)，我們?nèi)匀粚?duì)此贊嘆不已！他接受過(guò)完整的教育，改信基督后，憑借自己激情洋溢的辯才，成為基督教的主要擁護(hù)者。他來(lái)到雅典——伯里克里斯之后的雅典，已經(jīng)越過(guò)了光榮的巔峰，走下坡的雅典?！妒ソ?jīng)》中記載：“所有的雅典人和寄居該地的異鄉(xiāng)人，都把全部時(shí)間用在傳聞和打聽(tīng)新事物上?！盩his more sensible method I am advocating is not new. It was used long ago by Saint Paul. He employed it in that famous address of his to the Athenians on Mars Hill-employed it with an adroitness and finesse that compels our admiration across nineteen centuries. He was a man of finished education; and, after his conversion to Christianity, his eloquence made him its leading advocate. One day he arrived at Athens-the post-Pericles Athens, an Athens that had passed the summit of its glory and was now on the decline. The Bible says of it at this period: "All the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing."

在那樣沒(méi)有收音機(jī)，沒(méi)有電報(bào)，沒(méi)有通信新聞稿的時(shí)代，雅典人要在每日午后抓點(diǎn)新鮮事來(lái)談?wù)撘欢ú蝗菀?。而保羅正是在這個(gè)時(shí)候來(lái)到這里，于是，就有了新鮮事啦！他們擠在保羅的四周，覺(jué)得好玩，又好奇又興奮。他們把保羅帶到艾羅培哥斯，對(duì)他說(shuō)：“我們可不可以知道你所說(shuō)的新教義是什么？因?yàn)槟銥槲覀兊亩鋷?lái)了新鮮的東西，我們想知道究竟是什么意思?！盢o radios, no cables, no news dispatches; those Athenians must have been hard put in those days to scratch up something fresh every afternoon. Then Paul came. Here was something new. They crowded about him, amused, curious interested. Taking him to the Aeropagus, they said, "May we know what this, new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean."

他們這是在邀請(qǐng)他演講。保羅一口答應(yīng)。他正是為此才來(lái)到這里的。保羅大概是站在拍賣臺(tái)上或一方石塊上，像所有的演講家一樣，一開(kāi)始都有點(diǎn)緊張，也許雙手還搓了幾下，開(kāi)口前清了清喉嚨。In other words, they invited a speech; and, nothing loath, Paul agreed. In fact, that was what he had come for. He probably stood up on a block or stone, and, being a bit nervous, as all good speakers are at the very outset, he may have given his hands a dry wash, and have cleared his throat before he began.

然而，保羅卻不能完全地贊同他們的措辭：“新教義……新奇的事物”，這是可怕的東西。必須把這些概念干干凈凈地拋棄，否則它們就會(huì)變成是宣傳相反意見(jiàn)的沃土。他不希望把自己的信仰當(dāng)成新奇的、怪異的事情來(lái)講。只有把自己的信仰和雅典人已經(jīng)相信的事實(shí)聯(lián)系起來(lái)或者作比較，才能避免異議。但是怎樣開(kāi)始呢？他想了一會(huì)兒，想出了很好的計(jì)劃，然后展開(kāi)了他千古不朽的演講：“你們雅典人，我知道你們對(duì)一切事物都非常迷信?！盚owever, he did not altogether approve of the way they had worded their invitation; "New doctrines ... strange things." That was poison. He must eradicate those ideas. They were fertile ground for the propagating of contradictory and clashing opinions. He did not wish to present his faith as something strange and alien. He wanted to tie it up to, liken it to, something they already believed. That would smother dissenting suggestions. But how? He thought a moment; hit upon a brilliant plan; he began his immortal address: "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are very superstitious."

有些譯本為：“你們非常具有宗教熱誠(chéng)?！蔽艺J(rèn)為這樣好一點(diǎn)，更準(zhǔn)確一些。雅典人信奉多神，非常熱誠(chéng)虔敬，以此為榮。先稱贊他們，讓他們喜歡，他們就會(huì)對(duì)他感到親切。在講演里還有一條法則，即要用例證支持論述，保羅就這么干了：Some translations read, "Ye are very religious."I think that is better, more accurate. They worshipped many gods; they were very religious. They were proud of it. He complimented them, pleased them. They began to warm toward him. One of the rules of the art of effective speaking is to support a statement by an illustration. He does just that:

“當(dāng)我路過(guò)這里，發(fā)現(xiàn)了你們的虔誠(chéng)。我看到一處神壇，上面寫(xiě)著‘獻(xiàn)給不知名的神’。”你瞧，這就證明了他們的虔誠(chéng)。他們很害怕會(huì)忽略了任何一位神，竟然建立神壇獻(xiàn)給不知名的神。這有點(diǎn)像多項(xiàng)目的保險(xiǎn)，對(duì)一切沒(méi)有察覺(jué)到的疏忽與無(wú)意的遺漏提供保險(xiǎn)。保羅提到這特別的神壇，就指出自己不是在奉承，而是說(shuō)明自己的評(píng)論是觀察后的真心贊賞。For, as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.That proves, you see, that they were very religious. They were so afraid of slighting one of the deities that they had put up an altar to the unknown God, a sort of blanket insurance policy to provide against all unconscious slights and unintentional oversights. Paul, by mentioning this specific altar, indicated that he was not dealing in flattery; he showed that his remark was a genuine appreciation born of observation.

這樣就可以有一個(gè)再合適不過(guò)的開(kāi)場(chǎng)了：“你們一無(wú)所知但崇拜的神，我將把他宣告給你們?！盢ow, here comes the consummate rightness of this opening: "Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

“新教義……新奇的事物？”他只字未提。他只是解釋有關(guān)一位神的一些事實(shí)，而這位神他們?cè)缇托欧畹€不了解。你看，保羅把他們本不相信的事情和他們已經(jīng)狂熱接受的相聯(lián)系——這便是他高超的技巧。New doctrine ... strange things? Not a bit of it. He was there merely to explain a few truths about a God they were already worshipping without being conscious of it. Likening the things they did not believe, you see, to something they already passionately accepted-such was his superb technique.

他宣講自己救贖與復(fù)活的教義，引述了希臘人自己的一位詩(shī)人的一些詩(shī)句，這樣他就結(jié)束了。有人嘲笑他，但其他的人卻說(shuō)：“我們還想聽(tīng)聽(tīng)你講的事。”He pronounced his doctrine of salvation and resurrection, quoted a few words from one of their own Greek poets; and he was done. Some of his hearers mocked, but others said, "We will hear thee again on this matter."

在說(shuō)服他人使得印象深刻的演講中，我們的問(wèn)題只是：如果一味地想把自己的理念灌進(jìn)聽(tīng)眾的心里，只會(huì)讓相反或?qū)α⒌睦砟畈粩嗟刈躺?。長(zhǎng)于此道的人，說(shuō)起話來(lái)魅力無(wú)窮，深深影響著他人。這就是我另外一本書(shū)《人性的弱點(diǎn)》里講的法則可以派上用場(chǎng)的地方。Our problem in making a talk to convince or impress others is just this: to plant the idea in their minds and to keep contradicting and opposing ideas from arising. He who is skilled in doing that has power in speaking and influencing others. Here is precisely where the rules in my book How to Win Friends and Influence People will be helpful.

幾乎在每天的生活當(dāng)中，你都可能遇到和你意見(jiàn)不同的人而進(jìn)行談?wù)摗Ｄ汶y道不是經(jīng)常需要在家里、在辦公室里、在各式各樣的社交場(chǎng)合里贏得人心，讓他們和你的思想一致嗎？想想你的方法有沒(méi)有需要改進(jìn)的地方呢？你是怎樣開(kāi)始的？有沒(méi)有使用林肯和馬克米蘭的智慧？如果你的回答是肯定的，那你真是一位少有的外交人才，一位心思縝密的高手。記住伍卓·威爾森的話吧：“如果你對(duì)我說(shuō)：‘我們坐下來(lái)談?wù)劙?。如果我們的意?jiàn)不合，那就讓我們了解彼此的原因，看看究竟存在了什么問(wèn)題?！覀凂R上就會(huì)感到其實(shí)彼此沒(méi)有距離，感覺(jué)我們分歧很少，而共同點(diǎn)倒很多。而且會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，只要我們有耐心、有誠(chéng)意，有彼此溝通的希冀，我們就終會(huì)溝通。”Almost every day of your life you are talking to people who differ from you on some subject under discussion. Aren't you constantly trying to win people to your way of thinking, at home, in the office, in social situations of all kinds? Is there room for improvement in your methods? How do you begin? By showing Lincoln's tact and Macmillan's? If so, you are a person of rare diplomacy and extraordinary discretion. It is well to remember Woodrow Wilson's words, "If you come to me and say, 'Let us sit down and take counsel together, and, if we differ from one another, understand why it is that we differ from one another, just what the points at issue are,' we will presently find that we are not so far apart after all, that the points on which we differ are few and the points on which we agree are many, and that if we only have the patience and the candor and the desire to get together, we will get together."