If you're debating someone in front of an audience then this works well because even if they remain in denial, then atleast the audience will be able to tell you're winning. But a one on one conversation with someone who stays in denial cant be won.
Hi Harry, that is an interesting point. I am guessing you are thinking about this in a formal debating setting where there is an official 'winner' or 'loser' in the argument. I tend to use this technique in coaching rather than in a formal debate, and in that context (and in normal conversation) I find it very effective in one-to-one discussions. But, as you point out, some people will deny certain things or ignore wrong assumptions no matter what you do.
@@hankschrader7050 in my experience there are several things that help. First is context. It is easier for people to see errors in thinking if they are not made to feel stupid. That is why I have had more success in coaching style situations, rather than in debating. In the latter, people are generally much more resistant to admitting any wrong assumptions. I highly recommend the approach advocated by Nancy Kline to help with this. You can read more here: therightquestions.co/how-do-you-create-the-best-thinking-environment/
The solution is not merely to paraphrase their beliefs, but to “steel-man” them. That is, restate their ideas better than they are able to in order to validate them and avoid triggering their ego defence mechanisms. From here you can leverage a technique known as “pacing and leading” where you agree with their opinion or apart of their opinion(also known as mirroring)before leading them to where you want to go. You can bring up an issue you have(“I really like x, but y still bothers me and brings up concerns”), or say that you used to feel the same way until you discovered something that changed your mind. This latter technique is known as “feel, felt, found” and is an old sales technique. I do not advise using the classic “I know how you feel, I felt the same way, but what I found was…” I have attempted this many times and it never worked as everyone thought I was being fake. The general framework however is still useful.
Wow! I understand why Socrates is regarded as a great thinker. He didn't bother with trying to win an argument or discussion, he was trying to find the truth. That is why he could drill down into what people were saying without getting them angry or resulting in an argument.
Love the statement that he made „strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss event, weak minds discuss people“ since I can see that within the people around me and what they talk about
This is something people could benefit from applying to themselves, with their own ideas. Then of course more benefit comes from other points of view to provide more questions that you haven’t thought of.
This was a nice succinct summary - I was looking for something like this in teaching high school students how to generate ideas and refine their thinking
Hank made an extremely important fact that it is necessary to win a debate if more than one person is present as their own interpretation of what is being argue is not tainted by their self-interest on the subject rather, they become an objective observer to determine for themselves which of the two arguments are valid or has more facts to back the subject that is being argued.
"Why do you who are a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, care so much about laying up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which you never regard or heed at all? Are you not ashamed of this?" -Socrates, Final words to the court before being forced to drink hemlock tea for ultimately acknowledging a singular authority over the order of things and being accused of messing with the minds of the youth. . . That is why he was killed. .
It is a sobering thought that today, as in Socrates' time, seeking truth, challenging assumptions and seeking new ideas can be dangerous. I recommend reading Phaedo, the dialogue recorded by Plato capturing the hours before Socrates' death, as it is tragic but also inspiring
@@therightquestions1 I recommend to you: Philo of Alexandria (25BC) ‘Complete Works of Philo’ Also, give ear to Jordan Petersons lecture at Celsus Library in Ephesus. . The video is called ‘LOGOS’ (This grand mystery of the ages, known by John chapter 1 to the whole world; The Word became flesh and dwelt among us… the LOGOS.. the intrinsic logic of the Almighty came and made His dwelling among us.. and the prophets of old, such as Isaiah (750BC) Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Micah, etc.. it was their message. . The whole time.. And their own killed them for it all the same… Paul expounds on it in the letter to the Hebrews.. the whole letter.
@@therightquestions1 When am I meant to say what I think, because from what I understand from the video, it is just a cycle of getting them to say something, repeating it slightly differently, getting them to change their opinion and say it, repeating it incorrectly, repeat repeat. I.e Gaslighting
Hi @@PiracyMan , that is an interesting observation but Socratic dialogue is certainly not gaslighting, for several reasons, but the most critical one is around the intent of the person asking questions. We all ask questions on a regular basis for various reasons but in Socratic dialogue, the primary incentive is to seek truth and create understanding between two parties. It is collaborative and the questioner is seeking to help clarify what the other person is saying and, through the process, they seek to identify and examine any assumptions to see if they are reasonable. This is entirely different to gaslighting where the questioner is explicitly trying to subvert someone else's sense of reality, generally in order to wield power over that person. In Socratic dialogue, the questions can challenge someone's thought processes but this is through pointing out logical fallacies, not by introducing untruths (as is the case in gaslighting). There is the chance to share what you think and then, in a Socratic dialogue, you effectively switch roles and the other person can ask questions to clarify and test the logic of your thinking. I hope that helps, do let me know if you have any further questions:)
Thanks for taking the time to identify that. I am still learning editing skills as I create the videos so it seems like creating chapters will be the next lesson! Any tips would be appreciated.
It can do. Many people have written using a Socratic approach to debate issues (take the letters and essays of C S Lewis as an example), and the original Socratic dialogues are in written form (captured by Plato) which are definitely worth checking out. There are lots but Gorgio, Meno and Apology are good places to start.
That's a great point. Of course, you cannot force anyone into a new viewpoint and even Socrates (if you read the dialogues) did not always manage to change people's perspectives, even when he challenged their logic. Therefore the aim is always to get to this new shared paradigm (getting closer to the truth) but it is never guaranteed.
Hi John, The Socratic method is not about ‘winning’ a conversation. It is focussed on identifying false assumptions and fallacies in an argument which is subtly different. Socrates wanted to find truth, hence this method of questioning. But the key is that it is not just receiving and interpreting, it is the incisive questions that expose wrong thinking. This differs from the Sophists who relied on rhetorical devices to win over an audience and a debate. To the Sophists the truth was of less importance to winning. If you follow the link there is further explanation in the accompanying article. Enjoy!
Hi Robert, that's a good point and I am thinking of doing a follow-up video and article with a little more detail and perhaps an example. The best examples are (of course) the dialogues themselves so if you are interested I highly recommend looking at the source material. If you want an overview of all the dialogues then I recommend this course on Audible: amzn.to/3YOqR3R
It's a shame how some people try to learn Socrates to "win arguments", they have missed the point entirely in their narrow minded petty thinking. In addition, this video is wrong. It is not the Socratic method. Socrates would rarely use the word "why" in dialogue (Ti). He would use the word "so". His dialogue was elucidating while infuriating. This video does not sum it up well at all.
Caution: Don't try this with stupid people, who are usualy in denial. They don't want to think deeply. This will trigger them, and that will trigger you as well. Been there, not worth it. Unless life threatening, allow them to be delusional. At best say: I happen to have a different opinion. Or don't say anything at all when they are making blunders. Good luck if its a family member that you care about!
As a civilian of the USA breaking through to the people I lost to MAGA has almost been impossible. No matter what facts are presented. This may be the answer.
Breaking through? Try breaking through to the people who listen to the mainstream media, and it's constant onslaught of lies about the people who support Trump. We are not all sychophants, we come from all walks of life, we are often highly successful, and educated. What we don't do, is melt down at the mere mention of a political rival, or call people who disagree, threats to democracy. Trump is representative of a feeling that our government no longer gives a crap about the small business owners, or trades people, or the working class, in general. If a Biden supporter were to be in the same room as myself, or others that I know, we would not melt down with unchecked hysteria, or narcissistic rage. Of that, I am certain. So engage in good faith dialectical conversation, you know, the type of exchange, that doesn't denigrate, prejudge, stereotype, or revolve around presumptuous sophistry. Believe what you will, but take great care to to not presume to narrative build, off of hearsay, or the parroting of second hand information, of questionable veracity.
The Socratic method only works in settings where both people are mature enough to have a conversation. In today’s society we can’t even accomplish that in the United States Congress. Sadly, I think the purity of the Socratic method may be dead.
I agree that it does require both parties to be mature to work best. It is also worth noting that the original Socratic dialogues often did not have a receptive party. Part of Socrates's mission was to challenge wrong or lazy political, personal and philosophical thinking, so there is hope!
