自譯

在批評(píng)對(duì)手的觀點(diǎn)時(shí)，你應(yīng)該有多親善？如果對(duì)手（的論辯）存在明顯矛盾之處，那么你當(dāng)然應(yīng)該強(qiáng)有力地指出它們。如果（對(duì)手的論辯）有些隱藏的矛盾之處，你應(yīng)該小心地將它們展現(xiàn)在我們面前，然后說它們的“壞話”1。但是，尋找隱藏的矛盾經(jīng)?？缛肓舜得蟠茫绾Ｑ舐蓭煱愕脑庌q和徹頭徹尾地模仿（見本書前文）。（追著你對(duì)手的論述漏洞）窮追不舍（所帶來）的刺激感，以及（他）必須在（論述的）某處隱藏他混亂的信念，某種程度上會(huì)催生你低親善度的理解，給你一個(gè)易攻擊的“靶子”。但是這些簡單的“靶子”通常與真正的問題無關(guān)，只是浪費(fèi)每個(gè)人的時(shí)間和耐心，即使他們給你的支持者帶來了樂趣，對(duì)這種具有“諷刺對(duì)手”傾向痼疾的最佳解藥，是多年前由社會(huì)心理學(xué)家和博弈論者 Anatol Rapoport（Robert Axelrod傳奇囚徒困境錦標(biāo)賽中獲勝者，Tit-for-Tat戰(zhàn)略的創(chuàng)造者）創(chuàng)建的一系列規(guī)則。

如何寫出優(yōu)雅的（意譯）批評(píng)性評(píng)論：
You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”

1. 您應(yīng)該試著清晰，生動(dòng)，公正地復(fù)述你對(duì)手的論述，以至于他說：“謝謝，我希望我能像你表述的這樣優(yōu)雅?！?/li>
2. 您應(yīng)列出任何能夠達(dá)成一致的前提（特別在它們沒有得到普遍認(rèn)可時(shí)）。
3. 您應(yīng)當(dāng)提出這個(gè)共同前提下，您從對(duì)手論述中的收獲。
4. 只有這樣，你才可以繼續(xù)反駁或批評(píng)。

遵循拉伯波特規(guī)則后，可以看到一些立竿見影的效果：您的對(duì)手將成為您批評(píng)的接受者：您已經(jīng)表明您了解他們的立場(chǎng),并對(duì)立場(chǎng)表現(xiàn)出良好的判斷力（您在一些重要事項(xiàng)上同意他們的觀點(diǎn)）甚至被他們所說的東西說服了。）

遵循拉伯波特規(guī)則，總是，或者至少對(duì)我而言，有些困難。坦率地說，有些目標(biāo)不值得這種尊重，并且 - 我承認(rèn) - 大力鞭笞這些論點(diǎn)（原文，放在火上燒烤）可能更能獲得快感。但是當(dāng)它被要求（使用），并且它奏效時(shí)，結(jié)果是令人滿意的。在我的《自由的進(jìn)化》（Freedom Evolves，2003）一書中，我特別努力公正地對(duì)待羅伯特凱恩（1996）的不相容的自由主義（我對(duì)自由意志的觀點(diǎn)，我非常不同意），并且我很敬重他寫給我的回應(yīng)。在我把章節(jié)草稿寄給他之后：

“...事實(shí)上，我喜歡它，盡管我們存在分歧。我的觀點(diǎn)，存在廣泛看法，而且通常是客觀的，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過被批評(píng)者所收到的評(píng)價(jià)。你傳達(dá)了我觀點(diǎn)的復(fù)雜性以及我努力解決困難問題的嚴(yán)肅性，而不僅僅是將它們掃地出門。我很感激它們，以及后續(xù)論辯過程?！?/p>

Other recipients of my Rapoport-driven attention have been less cordial. The fairer the criticism seems, the harder to bear in some cases. It is worth reminding yourself /that a heroic attempt to find a defensible interpretation of an author, if it comes up empty, can be even more devastating than an angry hatchet job. I recommend it.

在我使用拉伯波特規(guī)則聚焦的其它論述上，其他人卻沒這么親切。駁論越客觀，在某些情況下越難承受。值得提醒的是，如果一個(gè)論述非?？斩?，那么英勇嘗試替作者辯護(hù)，可能比大肆撻伐作者論述更能破壞他的論證。我推薦這種方式。

（可能存在誤區(qū)之處，已用括號(hào)標(biāo)注）

原文

Just how charitable are you supposed to be when criticizing the views of an opponent? If there are obvious contradictions in the opponent’s case, then of course you should point them out, forcefully. If there are somewhat hidden contradictions, you should carefully expose them to view—and then dump on them. But the search for hidden contradictions often crosses the line into nitpicking, sea-lawyering,1 and—as we have seen—outright parody. The thrill of the chase and the conviction that your opponent has to be harboring a confusion somewhere encourages uncharitable interpretation, which gives you an easy target to attack. But such easy targets are typically irrelevant to the real issues at stake and simply waste everybody’s time and patience, even if they give amusement to your supporters. The best antidote I know for this tendency to caricature one’s opponent is a list of rules promulgated many years ago by the social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport (creator of the winning Tit-for-Tat strategy in Robert Axelrod’s legendary prisoner’s dilemma tournament).2
How to compose a successful critical commentary:

1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

One immediate effect of following these rules is that your targets will be a receptive audience for your criticism: you have already shown that you understand their positions as well as they do, and have demonstrated good judgment (you agree with them on some important matters and have even been persuaded by something they said).3
Following Rapoport’s Rules is always, for me at least, something of a struggle. Some targets, quite frankly, don’t deserve such respectful attention, and—I admit—it can be sheer joy to skewer and roast them. But when it is called for, and it works, the results are gratifying. I was particularly diligent in my attempt to do justice to Robert Kane’s (1996) brand of incompatib ilism (a view about free will with which I profoundly disagree) in my book Freedom Evolves (2003), and I treasure the response he wrote to me after I had sent him the draft chapter:
. . . In fact, I like it a lot, our differences notwithstanding. The treatment of my view is extensive and generally fair, far more so than one usually gets from critics. You convey the complexity of my view and the seriousness of my efforts to address difficult questions rather than merely sweeping them under the rug. And for this, as well as the extended treatment, I am grateful.

Other recipients of my Rapoport-driven attention have been less cordial. The fairer the criticism seems, the harder to bear in some cases. It is worth reminding yourself that a heroic attempt to find a defensible interpretation of an author, if it comes up empty, can be even more devastating than an angry hatchet job. I recommend it.

譯注

1 Maritime law is notoriously complicated, strewn with hidden traps and escape clauses that only an expert, a sea lawyer, can keep track of, so sea-lawyering is using technicalities to evade responsibility or assign blame to others.

2 The Axelrod tournament (Axelrod and Hamilton, 1981; Axelrod, 1984) opened up the blossoming field of theoretical research on the evolution of altruism. I give an introductory account in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (Dennett, 1995, pp. 479–480), and in more recent times there has been an explosion of variations, both simulations and experiments, in laboratories around the world. Rapoport’s wonderfully simple implementation of the idea “I won’t hit you if you don’t hit me” is the seed from which all the later studies and models have grown.

3 The formulation of Rapoport’s Rules here is my own, done from memory of correspondence with Rapoport many years ago, now apparently lost. Samuel Ruth recently pointed out to me that the original source of Rapoport’s Rules is in his book Fights, Games, and Debates (1960) and his paper “Three Modes of Conflict” 1984) opened up the blossoming field of theoretical research on the evolution of altruism. I give an introductory account in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (Dennett, 1995, pp. 479–480), and in more recent times there has been an explosion of variations, both simulations and experiments, in laboratories around the world. Rapoport’s wonderfully simple implementation of the idea “I won’t hit you if you don’t hit me” is the seed from which all the later studies and models have grown.

3 The formulation of Rapoport’s Rules here is my own, done from memory of correspondence with Rapoport many years ago, now apparently lost. Samuel Ruth recently pointed out to me that the original source of Rapoport’s Rules is in his book Fights, Games, and Debates (1960) and his paper “Three Modes of Conflict” (1961), which articulates rule 1, attributing it to Carl Rogers, and variations on the rest of the rules. My version is somewhat more portable and versatile.

參考內(nèi)容

1. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rapoport's_Rules
2. 《直覺泵》，2018，浙江人民出版社，湛盧文化

耗時(shí)45min