4 ms·

It can be executed by a teacher, but the method and Socratic circles are based around peer-level interlocutors. An initial questioner may exist and that is not

It can be executed by a teacher, but the method and Socratic circles are based around peer-level interlocutors. An initial questioner may exist and that is not regarded as an elevated role, merely a way to gain experience in starting off a Socratic circle.

SkyBelow 7y ago
It can be but it seems to have a strong negative effect. I've tried it numerous times when I see something as clearly being A but someone else sees it as clearly being B. Once my initial attempts to explain why I see it as A fail, I start asking why they see it as B to understand their view point. The goal is one of three outcomes. * Find an error in my logic. Oh, it clearly is B. * Find an error in their logic. See, it clearly is A. * Find a point of disagreement other than A vs B that explains the outcome. I think X, which is why I see A, but if you think Y, then I can understand why you see it as B. But in all cases, this sort of questioning a person's logic is viewed as a strong negative of just not dropping a subject. Some instances it may be better to drop it, but when it comes to specs in what I'm building for work, just dropping a disagreement in what the intention of the widget can lead to coding the wrong widget. There seems to be a needed charisma to keeping someone engaged and one that deeply irks me is that part of this charisma seems driven off of factors that we cannot control and which we condemn discriminating upon (meaning there is active subconscious discrimination that shouldn't be happening, but because people don't realize things like how taller people are treated with more authority or how we assume better of more attractive people, the discrimination is overlooked).
- watwut 7y ago
  You can not make that conclusion from your method. While B has to explain in details every step and fact, A does not. It is assumed that if no error was found in B, A must be true. Therefore, B must be flawless to pass, but A can have pretty much any amount of logical or factual errors in it - as long as they are not directly visible. > There seems to be a needed charisma to keeping someone engaged Of course people stop to be engaged the moment they realize what is going on, whether they are able to argue back and move the needle or not. And even when they are able to clearly explain what is going on, they may decide that the most rational move in that moment is for them to disengage without accusing you or furthering conflict.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    >You can not make that conclusion from your method. I think you are missing the general idea and being stuck on the details which I highly simplified. The step after identifying the difference in logic is to work back from there and establish a full chain of reasoning we both agree upon, but I cut that out in my half sentence description. >Of course people stop to be engaged the moment they realize what is going on So the people who have an interest in convincing me (as I'm the one building the application) have no desire to do convincing when they realize I'm trying to understand their rationale? Why? I have learned to document it well when it happens, so when the project does fail I can show their manager exactly where I built what was asked for, noted my concerns with the design, and showed where they disengaged from addressing those concerns and desired for me to just do as they asked.
    - watwut 7y ago
      1.) The issue I was pointing out at was that one of ideas has to pass much different standard then the other. You are looking at differences only in one place, not at the other. B being faulty does not imply A being correct. B having small problem does not imply A does not have even bigger problem. 2.) What I mean is that people conclude that you play politics with rules. You don't put your ideas under the same rigorous test. That is where disengagement typically starts. Then it makes sense to go either your way or my way, but depending on politics of the situation (who is going to be responsible, who is stronger politically). How I think your idea would be had it gone through the same test should be factor, but if that part runs without you. It does not make sense to play one sided questioning game for the person you are negotiating with. Your idea can make the project fail too and from the point of view of the other person, was not really tested. And then if you are accountable I drop my idea and let you do your thing. If I am accountable, you did not done nothing to covince me you are right. Through it is also unlikely that the project would fail of a single reason. So I don't think the documentation would be much of the threat. We write minutes from non conflict non hostile meetings all the time, so it does not sound like much would be changed. Not that it would be used the way you suggest often. Unless other person works in some kind of toxic company, they are fine explaining their reasoning to manager. It is quite likely they discussed your questions even before they decided to disengage.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  Well the Socratic method frequently results in aporia or puzzlement for both parties and doesn’t necessarily resolve conflicts in business. When you need to discover the next step or a new direction among cooperating people it’s food for thought, but for negotiating hidden conflicts of client work a more robust method is needed. Discrimination is a tool, being seen as ugly or short in a position of success implies you overcame difficulty and played right can enhance a specific image or personality aspect you want to use as a technique for influencing clients. That game will always coexist with high level abstracted method like the Socratic.

SkyBelow 7y ago

It can be but it seems to have a strong negative effect. I've tried it numerous times when I see something as clearly being A but someone else sees it as clearly being B. Once my initial attempts to explain why I see it as A fail, I start asking why they see it as B to understand their view point. The goal is one of three outcomes. * Find an error in my logic. Oh, it clearly is B. * Find an error in their logic. See, it clearly is A. * Find a point of disagreement other than A vs B that explains the outcome. I think X, which is why I see A, but if you think Y, then I can understand why you see it as B. But in all cases, this sort of questioning a person's logic is viewed as a strong negative of just not dropping a subject. Some instances it may be better to drop it, but when it comes to specs in what I'm building for work, just dropping a disagreement in what the intention of the widget can lead to coding the wrong widget. There seems to be a needed charisma to keeping someone engaged and one that deeply irks me is that part of this charisma seems driven off of factors that we cannot control and which we condemn discriminating upon (meaning there is active subconscious discrimination that shouldn't be happening, but because people don't realize things like how taller people are treated with more authority or how we assume better of more attractive people, the discrimination is overlooked).

watwut 7y ago
You can not make that conclusion from your method. While B has to explain in details every step and fact, A does not. It is assumed that if no error was found in B, A must be true. Therefore, B must be flawless to pass, but A can have pretty much any amount of logical or factual errors in it - as long as they are not directly visible. > There seems to be a needed charisma to keeping someone engaged Of course people stop to be engaged the moment they realize what is going on, whether they are able to argue back and move the needle or not. And even when they are able to clearly explain what is going on, they may decide that the most rational move in that moment is for them to disengage without accusing you or furthering conflict.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >You can not make that conclusion from your method. I think you are missing the general idea and being stuck on the details which I highly simplified. The step after identifying the difference in logic is to work back from there and establish a full chain of reasoning we both agree upon, but I cut that out in my half sentence description. >Of course people stop to be engaged the moment they realize what is going on So the people who have an interest in convincing me (as I'm the one building the application) have no desire to do convincing when they realize I'm trying to understand their rationale? Why? I have learned to document it well when it happens, so when the project does fail I can show their manager exactly where I built what was asked for, noted my concerns with the design, and showed where they disengaged from addressing those concerns and desired for me to just do as they asked.
  - watwut 7y ago
    1.) The issue I was pointing out at was that one of ideas has to pass much different standard then the other. You are looking at differences only in one place, not at the other. B being faulty does not imply A being correct. B having small problem does not imply A does not have even bigger problem. 2.) What I mean is that people conclude that you play politics with rules. You don't put your ideas under the same rigorous test. That is where disengagement typically starts. Then it makes sense to go either your way or my way, but depending on politics of the situation (who is going to be responsible, who is stronger politically). How I think your idea would be had it gone through the same test should be factor, but if that part runs without you. It does not make sense to play one sided questioning game for the person you are negotiating with. Your idea can make the project fail too and from the point of view of the other person, was not really tested. And then if you are accountable I drop my idea and let you do your thing. If I am accountable, you did not done nothing to covince me you are right. Through it is also unlikely that the project would fail of a single reason. So I don't think the documentation would be much of the threat. We write minutes from non conflict non hostile meetings all the time, so it does not sound like much would be changed. Not that it would be used the way you suggest often. Unless other person works in some kind of toxic company, they are fine explaining their reasoning to manager. It is quite likely they discussed your questions even before they decided to disengage.
friendlybus 7y ago
Well the Socratic method frequently results in aporia or puzzlement for both parties and doesn’t necessarily resolve conflicts in business. When you need to discover the next step or a new direction among cooperating people it’s food for thought, but for negotiating hidden conflicts of client work a more robust method is needed. Discrimination is a tool, being seen as ugly or short in a position of success implies you overcame difficulty and played right can enhance a specific image or personality aspect you want to use as a technique for influencing clients. That game will always coexist with high level abstracted method like the Socratic.