8 ms·

The Socratic Method is one of persuasion, not discussion. The effort is to guide the person to your idea, on their own, so to speak. This is a poor method of ac

The Socratic Method is one of persuasion, not discussion. The effort is to guide the person to your idea, on their own, so to speak. This is a poor method of actual discussion. In essence, you become the opinionated one.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cJ0th 9y ago
> This is a poor method of actual discussion. In essence, you become the opinionated one. Exactly. And this becomes very clear in the video. The interviewer harps on about the "reliability of faith" without really listening to what Antony is saying. Different people who are having different faiths but still believe in the same thing is only illogical if you wish to see it like that. All programs in your computer, for instance, can safely assume that memory does exist. There is no point for a program to find out whether something like memory is real. I am not talking about finding out whether space is left etc. I am merely saying that a piece of software does not need a science library to investigate the existence of memory. Sure, sometimes you don't receive something from memory when you need it, sometimes bad things happen when you work with the bits it gives you and so on. But questioning the existence of memory is besides the point. Now lets imagine another program which also "believes" in the existance of memory The user uses this program to remove the other program. In other words, two programs who have the same "faith" kill each other. This is not a contradiction. Someone should do the Socrates on him to elicit why "reliability" is something one has to discuss when it comes to faith. I am pretty sure his answers would also be contradictory within a short amount of time.
- m_mueller 9y ago
  I think you're concentrating on the wrong word - reliability. That doesn't seem the central assumption of Anthony here, it's just an attribute to arrive at the central assumption: That there is a universal truth, i.e we all live in the same world, only our models of that world are different (i.e. subjective).
  - cJ0th 9y ago
    > That doesn't seem the central assumption of Anthony here, Yes, that's my point. It's the interviewer who has this idea that faith should be reliable and that's what I was questioning. Or did you mean the interviewer (Anthony with an h) ? I am a bit confused right now..
    - m_mueller 9y ago
      Yes I mean the interviewer. Your critique of is argument is based on his use of reliability - I find that tangential. His main assumption is that of a universal truth - faith being unreliable is just what follows. So are you saying that there is no universal truth or that faith is somehow exempt from the search for truth?
- Panoramix 9y ago
  You say: 1) Person A: I hold a belief for which there is no proof or rational support. I just have faith in it. 2) Person B: I too hold such a set of beliefs. Mine are different than yours and they even compel me to kill you. What interviewer meant is that this method of thinking arrives at vastly different, even conflicting views, hence it is inconsistent and unreliable.
elcapitan 9y ago
Agree. It's not a method of equal-level discussion, it's a method of teaching.
- xchip 9y ago
  It is a method for examining believes or ideas, either you or the other person can learn things over the process, a thing that is great.
smokeyj 9y ago
And the point of discussion is..? I like the method because you can learn why people believe something along the way. Sometimes you might even change your own view based on their reasoning.
- onion2k 9y ago
  And the point of discussion is..? To discover what others think, know, or believe; not to change their mind.
  - hbarka 9y ago
    Was it mentioned that the intent is to have the other change their mind?
    - zsd 9y ago
      Should it have been?
      - hbarka 9y ago
        Is expecting what it should be part of the Socratic method?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - miguelrochefort 9y ago
    What's the difference?
    - mathgeek 9y ago
      Grab a dictionary and look up "discussion", then look up "argument".
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Why do you think the socratic method cannot be used for a means of discussion and learning for both parties?
- booleandilemma 9y ago
  I can't tell if you're using the socratic method or not.
dsacco 9y ago
I disagree. I very often use the Socratic method, or elements of it, when I don't know much about a topic and want to passively challenge the other party's ideas without trying to convince them of an opposing view point. I do this in person and in online forums like this one. I'm not trying to guide someone to my own conclusion, and I might not have enough information to have an educated opinion, or I might be ambivalent about the subject. It takes the form of me asking for clarification in a non-antagonistic fashion. I would say I most often use this strategy to force people to justify their own opinions to me when I have no opinion at all. I even do this to people I agree with.
- xchip 9y ago
  Fantastic, this was the whole point of my post, to promote this type of approach, especially at work.
xchip 9y ago
From Wikipedia: "The Socratic method [...] or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions" It seems that it is a method for discussing ideas.
- pgeorgi 9y ago
  > A method for discussing ideas. ... when done on a level playing field. That's not what usually happens when people want to deal with "an opinionated colleague, manager or even a relative" (as the OP suggests).
  - xchip 9y ago
    I do use Socratic questions when discussing with colleagues, family and friends. It minimizes conflict and it helps reach agreement faster than any other method
YCode 9y ago
Seems like a bit of projection here... The method isn't intrinsically persuasive. It's often used to find the root of a problem or set of values when the questioner doesn't know the issue with enough precision to fairly discuss it with the subject. And most of the time the theoretical "goal" is to examine a belief or potentially invoke doubt on a belief previously considered solid rather than reach any conclusion. Anecdotally I recently fell into this line of discussion with an anti-vaxer friend of mine. Instead of trying to persuade him he's wrong I asked questions about his beliefs and asked him to justify his decisions. Questions like "You were vaccinated, did that negatively impact you?" or "Do you worry about your children getting those sicknesses?" Questions meant to clarify or examine, not persuade. In the end neither of us changed our positions on the topic, but if we're honest that was never on the table. At least now I have a clearer understanding of his perspective and he was willing to share some of the more vulnerable details of his beliefs that he wouldn't have admitted had I come at him persuasively.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

cJ0th 9y ago

> This is a poor method of actual discussion. In essence, you become the opinionated one. Exactly. And this becomes very clear in the video. The interviewer harps on about the "reliability of faith" without really listening to what Antony is saying. Different people who are having different faiths but still believe in the same thing is only illogical if you wish to see it like that. All programs in your computer, for instance, can safely assume that memory does exist. There is no point for a program to find out whether something like memory is real. I am not talking about finding out whether space is left etc. I am merely saying that a piece of software does not need a science library to investigate the existence of memory. Sure, sometimes you don't receive something from memory when you need it, sometimes bad things happen when you work with the bits it gives you and so on. But questioning the existence of memory is besides the point. Now lets imagine another program which also "believes" in the existance of memory The user uses this program to remove the other program. In other words, two programs who have the same "faith" kill each other. This is not a contradiction. Someone should do the Socrates on him to elicit why "reliability" is something one has to discuss when it comes to faith. I am pretty sure his answers would also be contradictory within a short amount of time.

m_mueller 9y ago
I think you're concentrating on the wrong word - reliability. That doesn't seem the central assumption of Anthony here, it's just an attribute to arrive at the central assumption: That there is a universal truth, i.e we all live in the same world, only our models of that world are different (i.e. subjective).
- cJ0th 9y ago
  > That doesn't seem the central assumption of Anthony here, Yes, that's my point. It's the interviewer who has this idea that faith should be reliable and that's what I was questioning. Or did you mean the interviewer (Anthony with an h) ? I am a bit confused right now..
  - m_mueller 9y ago
    Yes I mean the interviewer. Your critique of is argument is based on his use of reliability - I find that tangential. His main assumption is that of a universal truth - faith being unreliable is just what follows. So are you saying that there is no universal truth or that faith is somehow exempt from the search for truth?
Panoramix 9y ago
You say: 1) Person A: I hold a belief for which there is no proof or rational support. I just have faith in it. 2) Person B: I too hold such a set of beliefs. Mine are different than yours and they even compel me to kill you. What interviewer meant is that this method of thinking arrives at vastly different, even conflicting views, hence it is inconsistent and unreliable.

elcapitan 9y ago

Agree. It's not a method of equal-level discussion, it's a method of teaching.

xchip 9y ago
It is a method for examining believes or ideas, either you or the other person can learn things over the process, a thing that is great.

smokeyj 9y ago

And the point of discussion is..? I like the method because you can learn why people believe something along the way. Sometimes you might even change your own view based on their reasoning.

onion2k 9y ago
And the point of discussion is..? To discover what others think, know, or believe; not to change their mind.
- hbarka 9y ago
  Was it mentioned that the intent is to have the other change their mind?
  - zsd 9y ago
    Should it have been?
    - hbarka 9y ago
      Is expecting what it should be part of the Socratic method?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- miguelrochefort 9y ago
  What's the difference?
  - mathgeek 9y ago
    Grab a dictionary and look up "discussion", then look up "argument".

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

Why do you think the socratic method cannot be used for a means of discussion and learning for both parties?

booleandilemma 9y ago
I can't tell if you're using the socratic method or not.

dsacco 9y ago

I disagree. I very often use the Socratic method, or elements of it, when I don't know much about a topic and want to passively challenge the other party's ideas without trying to convince them of an opposing view point. I do this in person and in online forums like this one. I'm not trying to guide someone to my own conclusion, and I might not have enough information to have an educated opinion, or I might be ambivalent about the subject. It takes the form of me asking for clarification in a non-antagonistic fashion. I would say I most often use this strategy to force people to justify their own opinions to me when I have no opinion at all. I even do this to people I agree with.

xchip 9y ago
Fantastic, this was the whole point of my post, to promote this type of approach, especially at work.

xchip 9y ago

From Wikipedia: "The Socratic method [...] or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions" It seems that it is a method for discussing ideas.

pgeorgi 9y ago
> A method for discussing ideas. ... when done on a level playing field. That's not what usually happens when people want to deal with "an opinionated colleague, manager or even a relative" (as the OP suggests).
- xchip 9y ago
  I do use Socratic questions when discussing with colleagues, family and friends. It minimizes conflict and it helps reach agreement faster than any other method

YCode 9y ago

Seems like a bit of projection here... The method isn't intrinsically persuasive. It's often used to find the root of a problem or set of values when the questioner doesn't know the issue with enough precision to fairly discuss it with the subject. And most of the time the theoretical "goal" is to examine a belief or potentially invoke doubt on a belief previously considered solid rather than reach any conclusion. Anecdotally I recently fell into this line of discussion with an anti-vaxer friend of mine. Instead of trying to persuade him he's wrong I asked questions about his beliefs and asked him to justify his decisions. Questions like "You were vaccinated, did that negatively impact you?" or "Do you worry about your children getting those sicknesses?" Questions meant to clarify or examine, not persuade. In the end neither of us changed our positions on the topic, but if we're honest that was never on the table. At least now I have a clearer understanding of his perspective and he was willing to share some of the more vulnerable details of his beliefs that he wouldn't have admitted had I come at him persuasively.