73%的解決方案

每當有人全心全意地同意我寫的東西時，我的內心就會有點崩潰。我知道意見專欄作家應該從事說服工作，這使得共識成為這個領域的硬幣。但即時的、下意識的同意讓我產生了懷疑。那枚硬幣已經貶值了。

Whenever someone wholeheartedly agrees with something Carlos Lozada writes, he feels a sense of unease. He believes that opinion columnists should aim to persuade readers, and complete agreement suggests a lack of persuasion.

每當有人全心全意地同意卡洛斯·洛扎達所寫的某些內容時，他就會感到不安。他認為，觀點專欄作家應該以說服讀者為目標，完全同意則顯示缺乏說服力。

Lozada prefers principled dissent, thoughtful counterarguments, or even enthusiastic opposition over complete agreement. He feels that complete agreement, whether expressed in writing, speech, or emojis, indicates that he has not persuaded the reader of anything but rather affirmed their existing beliefs.

洛薩達更喜歡原則上的異議、深思熟慮的反駁，甚至是熱情的反對，而不是完全同意。他認為，完全同意，無論是透過書面、演講或表情符號表達，都顯示他沒有說服讀者任何事情，而是肯定了他們現有的信念。

He finds complete agreement suspicious, especially in the context of politics or culture podcasts or cable news round tables, where he observes moments of 100% vociferous agreement. While audiences often express concern about contrarian shout-fests in the mainstream media, Lozada is more troubled by the self-assured nod-fests.

他發現完全一致是可疑的，特別是在政治或文化播客或有線新聞圓桌會議的背景下，他觀察到 100% 大聲同意的時刻。雖然觀眾經常對主流媒體的逆勢喊話表示擔憂，但洛札達更擔心的是自信的點頭盛會。

He acknowledges that figures of speech like "this!" or "co-sign" are particularly common on social media and that people may not always fully consider their implications. However, he believes that one element driving the disagreement among America's various political and cultural camps is the push for uniformity within those camps.

他承認像「這個！」這樣的修辭手法。或「共同簽名」在社群媒體上尤其常見，人們可能並不總是充分考慮其含義。然而，他認為導緻美國各個政治和文化陣營之間分歧的一個因素是推動這些陣營內部的統一。

When one side or another embraces complete agreement regarding a topic, it can tempt opponents to take refuge in the precise opposite view, leading to the clustering of viewpoints and the creation of echo chambers.

當一方或另一方就某個主題達成完全一致時，可能會誘使反對者轉而尋求完全相反的觀點，從而導致觀點聚集和迴聲室的產生。

Despite being an opinion columnist who aims to persuade readers, Lozada encourages them not to agree with him 100%. He suggests a figure of 73% agreement, which he notes is the percentage of Americans who rank their finances as the top source of stress in their lives, favor term or age limits for Supreme Court justices, or believe in heaven.

儘管洛薩達是一位旨在說服讀者的觀點專欄作家，但他鼓勵讀者不要百分之百同意他的觀點。他提出了 73% 的同意率，他指出這是將財務狀況視為生活中最大壓力來源、支持最​​高法院法官任期或年齡限製或相信天堂的美國人的百分比。

He envisions a scenario where talking heads on cable news or podcasts might engage in nuanced discussions, agreeing with each other partially but also introducing new perspectives or points of disagreement. He believes that such conversations would be more engaging and productive.

他設想了一個場景，有線新聞或播客上的評論家可能會進行細緻入微的討論，彼此部分同意，但也會引入新的觀點或分歧點。他相信這樣的對話會更有魅力、更有生產力。