please look at my comment above: they are demons humans are a carriage to commit horrors and then discard and move on: we are invaded. we live in basically a Chicken Coop. p
I would love more programming like this...great information and new ways to think and understand rather then just get angry with is working in the solution rather then just stating the problem.
Agreed :) Even though this is a very ancient way of thinking. It says a lot that this kind of thing isn't taught in most schools these days. And if it is, then it's usually only availale late in our development. Imagine having a populace founded in critical thought, the ability to have and explore self doubt, empathy, and interpersonal communication skills. We may have actually had a functioning society to live in today :(
Wow ! This was such a REFRESHING talk. As a practitioner of reflective thought, I can see now why I am so alone in my thinking. I would like to hear more about the enriching depth of what Stoicism was originally about...sounds intriguing, guess I will have to buy the Book. Thanks for timeliness "timelessness" of this conversation..it was TIME, so well spent for me !
One good way is to go back to the very beginning of what they're talking about: Socrates and Plato's Republic. You can read it for free since it was written llike 380? b.c You can also just listen to it on RU-vid. It's fascinating. And there are plenty of commentaries on The Republic. Any way you do it, you can start to see how to use the Socratic method to get folks to think things through and apply logic. Hope that helps.
David's interviews tend to include high quality of topics, guests, and very rich discussions. I also like that he doesn't spend any time fanboying with the guests, he gives a simple introduction and gets right into the discussion. Many shows spend time hyping the guest's credentials and giggling. I understand why an introduction can/does involve giggling and small talk but I often think that exchange can be inauthentic. Instead, Davis does not pretend to be best friends with the guest and gets right to the discussion.
the "rebuttal" is mine: please see my open comment above. it is hard to understand if this gentleman Really Believes his "method" - which is also mine ! - will work on brainwashed/possessed ex-"humans". : /
Street Epistemology videos on RU-vid are helpful in learning the Socratic method. It's a great way to have better discussions with family and friends with opposing views. It also helps you to identify and be aware of your own cognitive biases and logical fallacies.
+1 for street epistemology...entirely too little time is spent teaching epistemology and epistemological theories, and practically everyone would benefit from more often asking, "how do we know that?"
@@khill8645 Hear! Hear! There are far too many people running around claiming to know what they know what they know. The real question is why do they believe it?
@@Satans_lil_helper Reminds me of a limerick Alan Watts was fond of repeating during his lectures... There was a young man who said "though It seems that I know that I know, But what I'd like to see Is the I who knows me When I know that I know that I know."
@@littlebitofhope1489 That's exactly where I'd start! 🖤 Anthony has really perfected the craft. Cordial Curiosity is another favorite, among many others whose names escape me.
Thank you, David, for having this man as a guest today! I am wowed. My brain is fluttering at the amount of thought and time this form of communication would take. Want his book. It will probably take a boot camp approach to reprogram our reactive society.
It was written about 375 b.c. and is not under copywrite. You can download it for free all over the place. You can listen to Plato's Republic read end to end on RU-vid as well.
@@nitanice yep and! it only Works on uncontaminated humans and other creatures of Good Will. remember Yeshu "peace on Earth to creatures of Good Will". ... pls see my open comment.
At least in my social and familial circles, the unfortunate trend is that people are so easily enticed by narratives that are shocking, scandalous, and especially those that call into question the authority of higher levels of knowledge that are not intuitive or difficult to master (any pseudo-science v. its abused counterpart). When faced with something we don't effortlessly understand, it's a huge relief to be told that thing is based on a lie, fabricated in some way so as not to be understood. We (Americans) also love to wrap up our identities in the things we believe. It becomes impossible to address any inconsistency without seeming to attack the underlying foundations of one's core belief system. We have a lot to outgrow.
you can also listen to readings of The Republic on RU-vid. Coincidentally, I've been doing that this week while gardening. Very relaxing. I read it years ago.
I definitely have more luck asking questions and trying to find common ground, than simply telling them facts. It’s like trying to convince someone’s new romantic interest is bad news, they dig in deeper. They need to come to their own conclusion.
Solid topic. I find issues that when you do get to the point where you can "dig in" and ask some more pointed questions to evoke an answer one way or another, and many of them just shut down and say "I don't want to talk about politics anymore" because they know they have been caught in something they cannot get out of. It is possible to change minds, but it is a delicate path to be sure.
@@The-significance-of-time0101 sure, if the topic was to go that way I would gladly talk about it. That being said anyone that knows me knows that I can be quite ageist and don't believe anyone over 75 should be allowed to run for a new term. I am not a fan of Biden, also not a fan of Trump. You don't have to pick one or the other.
@@lordyogi595 I wanted to vote for Jo Jorgensen because she had amazing policies, however I don't like throwing my vote away. I understand millions hate Trump but that was no excuse to vote for a racist potato solely out of hate for our Country, Its People and especially our Ex-President. Trump was the better of the two candidates for absolute sure now Biden has shown us his hand. But Hein sight is 20 20 after all.
There’s a guy by the name of Anthony Magnabosco that addresses magical thinking and and unsubstantiated beliefs through the Socratic method. I would recommend his videos as far as exploring what people think and why.
Questioning ourselves and our friends and fellow citizens through honest and polite conversation is the key. Listen to eachother. Start with things we agree upon before gently moving into areas of debate.
A good interview. Sadly, in the rare cases I've been able to really narrow down a conversation that leads to a single conclusion, usually the other person deflects and changes the subject. It's like they know they're pinned to a answer and evade uttering that answer at any cost. It's cognitive dissonance at it's most apparent.
I agree with this quote with the understanding that administering medicine to the dead is something that is actually done for medical research. rekt and destroyed
It’s so interesting to watch this, having seen most of David’s interviews, and notice how well he practices it in real discussions. Critical thinking is incredibly important and I found this video fascinating
In my use of the Elenchus I have often found that many interlocutors don't really know what they know or have any evidence for their beliefs. Many exhibit fundamental logical fallacies which they cannot surmount.
I've generally found people resistant to the socratic method. They either get their hackles up on being questioned, or despite the conclusion, no matter how reasoned, they reject it on what I term 'romantic' grounds, preferring their feelings over any reasoning.
If they weren't resistant they probably would have already changed their mind. The point of using the socratic method is to get them to acknowledge the flaws in their beliefs, usually one at a time.
Has the professor forgotten the 'torpedo shock' method of Socrates, in which one straightforwardly ridicules a belief? And what is wrong with offending people? Who wants to have idiots as friends?
Frau Schneider has a chilling song in Cabaret, towards the end where she sings, “what would you do if you were me.” She saw the Nazis taking over, she was warned, and this is how she explained why she decided to stay put. Not sure why this video reminded me of that song.
It's almost like getting someone to start thinking critically, without necessarily coming to a conclusion at that time. I agree with everything he said, especially about coming from a humble state of mind. Even David has previously mentioned getting into their heads, to see where the beliefs come from, but not being arrogant about it, because you're really trying to find a meeting place, not become a bullying enemy. Our social media hate fests get us nowhere.
Agreed, it’s like planting a little seed. I find that folks are more accepting of a truth they’ve come to realize for themselves, rather than being convinced. This method helps to plant the seed that will grow in their mind on its own.
Check out Anthony Magnabosco talking to theists. His use of the Socratic method is legendary to help theists understand how they have such confidence in their beliefs, and whether that confidence is justified. Great stuff, David!
live socratic method... my girls use this method in their home school coop and studying. its very helpful in understanding other ppl perspective for a deeper understanding and critical thinking. ❤
And then there's Brandolini's Asymmetry Principle, which states that "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is orders of magnitude greater than to create it."
The podcast host might want to read the book. It appears he hasn't judging by the questions he is asking the author. Maybe he's read it since the interview. This is a fantastic book, IMO. Humility, introspection, and an honest search for the truth are at the heart of it. I highly recommend it.
Nice job. I am also interested in dialog with a lot people who disagree with me. Mainly I think the differences are due to lack of media literacy. If people were aware of the way the media works I think we would far less polarized
@@littlebitofhope1489 I’ve actually been trying the method of motivational interviewing. Picked it up from Adam Grant’s book “think again” but will look into that as well
I had a conservative friend who'd seemingly do the socratic method when discussing politics with me, but at some point his method seemed more like gaslighting than trying to understand me and my reasoning. His questions were always leading, you could tell, I would answer them with as much thoughtfullness and insight as possible. He would get annoyed with me because I didn't just answer yes or no, his socratic method was to simplify my views as much as possible in order to (I'm guessing) more easily poke holes into them...either way, I got tired of arguing with him, in the end he wrote me off because I didn't "commiserate enough" when his nurse wife had to get vaccinated per state regulations...
@@buzzbuzzard3809 The vaccine has not ruined plenty of lives, the tiny handful that have been allegedly ruined are vastly outweighed by the innumerable and easily verifiable lives that have been saved by the vaccine. People who know that tend to get annoyed by people who refuse to acknowledge it. Clown.
I think in a stalemate conversation, or someone with a powerful emotion based denial, It's effective to just say "Let's think about it and talk about it later. Several bite sized rounds of short talks and longer breaks can pull someone out of their logical fallacies and emotional based opinions.
This guy is in the business of shaping youthful minds, with an intellectual acuity that's receptive to critical thinking, not trump rally attendees trampling the english language with nonsensical blabber. They'll say he's still the president, and the next second he's going to take back the office, they leave no room for the socratic method.
Maybe give it a try and see what happens.. I've seen the Socratic method (when properly executed) have some surprising results on those I wouldn't have expected much progress with
Coincidentally I'm rereading Plato's Republic at the moment. While I hear this in the course of my work (law), it been enlightening to reread and rethink about it -- especially since that book's about justice and what it is and human relations and forms of government.
David really is skilled in using this method. He used it to good effect in à recent interview with an Ohio political candidate,who was very personable and respectful and didn't deserve rudeness or humiliation, which would've been the approach many others would've fallen into. Cool intellect and persuasive logic is all we really have in the end.
This is so interesting and worth looking into, I always think that the left and right are just opposite sides of the same coin, they stuck in their own echo chambers, where as being centralists I can observe both sides, that’s why more progress is always achieved in this position.
Confidence is useless without good arguments to warrant it. Usually, people that think they are good at debate, but are really just stubborn, have this kind of confidence. Only spectators that dont understand the arguments are impressed by confidence. Actually, making a flawed argument with bravado and overconfidence makes you look like a fool.
I have yet to find a supporter of TFG that could be reasoned with.... that's family, friends, etc.... They are caught up in that cult of personality and they believe anything TFG says implicitly
I agree. Do you notice many seem to lack empathy and humility? So this method would only work for some and others are completely lost. If I come across these types I would avoid them entirely.
This method is great If You Get The Opportunity To Actually Say Something. I run into this with certain people who simply won’t allow me to talk and oftentimes I cannot even finish a sentence and I get interrupted. The communication has to be civil and respectful or you won’t have any chance of making your point. Whenever someone interrupts you or raises their voice to drown you out Nothing gets accomplished. Whenever I run into this type of thing I just sit back and let them run their mouth. Give them enough time and they will dig their own grave and fall right into it.
I'm sorry but I talked with my religious relatives about gender identity and gender dysphoria. Even though they agreed with me. Even though they said they understood being transgender is not a choice the conclusion was: I need to follow God and listen to God not what you showed me or shared about being transgender. People have their minds made up. Even for the religious Jesus warned you. Woe unto those who call good evil and evil good. Religions eagerly praise lying republican politicians yet when I show them proof and they agree they still call me evil sense I'm transgender. God forbid teaching anyone like the truth should be the Republicans motto.
I know you are from Argentina and speak perfect Spanish but I can't help notice as an American that you speak perfect English as well with an American accent. How does that happen?
It doesn't. Cult mentality = bad faith discussion. There is nothing you can do unless you have more influence/trust than the cult leader. They have a cult mentality because they only trust the cult leader and his generals who are telling them what they want to hear.
Another good question for that Trump supporting uncle might be; What is it that you think liberals just aren't getting about Trump supporters - what is it you think we don't understand? Really emphasize what it is he (or they) want us to understand. They won't be ready for that, but let that be okay bc what's more important is to leave them with that to think about.
Kinda goes along with a ‘quote’ I saw recently. I’m not saying “does that makes” to say you’re stupid, I’m saying it to see if I have conveyed my message clearly.
@@kacodemonio every time I crush a bug or fly on my skin, I'm now forced to realize that it could have been on me for minutes or hours before I knew it. Fuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh.....k
I've been using Socratic method for professional purposes for years and it works wonderfully. But I cannot seem to apply this Socratic method on right-wing/conservatives/maga supporters... Really hard to follow their "logic", repeated politician buzzwords, fake data, conspiracy theories, prejudice, etc. Not to mention, they tend to get defensive and angry if you dig too deep into their "reasoning".
That guy's answer to the "Thanksgiving table argument" - is it even worthwhile? Is perfect. Relationships are about an exchange of value. If there's nothing you get from the ridiculous uncle, then why have the argument? If it's guaranteed to upset the uncle - who you value - to pursue an aggressive argument, then why have the argument? Part of the reason that people are divided is the tribalism inherent in media consumption, and the fact that everybody has to announce what they believe as if they were given a megaphone. We aren't really saving many from the Trump trance with debate. They lack the requisite skill.
A better discussion to have, is what does a secure election look like to you, rather than ask them what would make them believe that the 2020 election was. Discuss the future, and one can find common goals and ideas, and in best case, get them to buy in to reality from now on. It doesn't matter is a person keeps believing that the 2020 election was stolen if they believe in future ones, where their sides looses. And if the GOP uses the cheats they have implemented with their election laws, you might get that person to understand that wasn't the right way to win, even if they might not as you believe that the GOP actually cheated if they throw out vote results of a state or district that would have lead to the Democratic candidate winning. Sometimes people are part of the family, and not everyone else in the family is willing to distance themselves from them, and they might have had another relationship with them in the past and see that person from a different light. So one has to accept people in the family one personally don't like, if there are other people in the family that is important for you... But if non in your family is important to you, well, maybe you should distance yourself completely.
This guy must have some smart family members. He clearly hasnt had an argument with a proper trumpeteer. If you ask em to define what they would consider to be a fair election, they'll just tell you to do your own research. Lol.
When people’s identity is tied to their beliefs and they are dishonest to begin with, no amount of convincing with any method will work. We will be wasting our time and energy. Best thing we can do is, have conversations with sane person and ridicule insane person to their face, and hope some one in the middle changes their mind as a spectator.
Critical thinkers are: 1) able to differentiate between opinion and facts. 2) willing to wait for more data to make an opinion. 3) driven by data and not opinion. 4) willing to change their opinion, if the data supports that change.
There are few critical thinkers out there. The pandemic proved that. To this day, there is no indisputable evidence that masks work for the general population. And early on in the pandemic the only results they had, was that because of how badly the general public handles masks, the risks of contamination is actually typically higher than for people not to wear masks, both in how they treat the masks and how they expose themselves to unnecessary risks. Even some medical personell that knows how to use masks properly in their worklife will not their private lives. There are studies of schools were masks were supposedly proven effective, but those students were taught how to use masks, and took precautions that the general population did not while wearing masks, there are even other studies of schools that have found no benefit of mask wearing. Yet many people that like to see themselves as critical thinkers, somehow believe that masks have actually been proven effective. They may still be in the general public, even despite the known downsides, but the studies to prove that they actually are, are still not in. Many actually believe today, Fauci was giving false information about masks so that the general public would not buy them all and the medical professionals would have to do without. But the studies as the time, actually suggested that masks could actually contribute to spread.
@@TheJonHolstein Government's decisions and policies are based on politic rather than data. Research and surveys are driven by profit, not the search for the truth.
@@christopherlim4743 Research and surveys are mostly not driven to a specific result because of profit motives. There are those that are, but they are a minority. There is also a lot of research that doesn't really find anything interesting, but because it is made by institutes, they are still published, but outside of most peoples view. There are also companies that do not find what they would have liked to and then never report anything, rather than try to spin it, or set up false premises.
Good interview. About humility most Trump supporters seem to lack it. They ooze ignorant arrogance so if you come at them with humility they will stomp you with willful arrogance. As this interview suggests if you come to their way of thinking and are met with this arrogance an immediate wall seems to be erected by the Trump supporter. They also seem to lack empathy. This is a very interesting tactic that could work with those who possess humility and empathy.
The problem is with most of them even if you show the evidence shows thier position is incorrect they just endlessly shift to some other claim or just default to some conspiracy. Thier position is always "this evidence proves I'm right and the lack of evidence also proves I'm right because they're hiding the evidence and the fact there's no evidence proves I'm right".
The societal flaw in this is endeavoring to accept literal threats and ill-intentions back into the fold. You can't fix monsters that have no empathy and are sworn to harm society. You can't excuse their predatory habits. You can't mollify their hatred and their disgust.
You have to get on the same side. Nobody wants to be proven wrong. I try to start with the fact that we are all in the same sinking boat. Everyone can agree on this.
Talk about the future. Most believes of things of the past is irrelevant, to get people on the right path in the future. It doesn't really matter if they keep believing that trump actually won in 2020, if they accept future election result when Democratic candidates win... Most people want safe elections.. some want temporarily to be able to cheat in some states to compensate for cheating they believe to be happening in other states but at the end of the day, they want safe elections.
Martians are here we hear elon does not have go to mars to find some but they could be his test pilots the canned cruz blasted to mars . damn maybe not??trump?
Getting them to say on topic is nearly impossible, they will argue in circles until they feel they have won, you can't fix stupid, you can only work around it.
The socratic method is a fantastic tool, clearly, but the radicalization from numerous unchecked sources (religious indoctrination, social media echo-chambers reinforcing groupthink, and "leaders" of various sources using psychological manipulation, for instance) makes it nearly impossible to reach such a large audience today. This country, as it stands today, is sadly largely unreasonable.
I automatically lend credibility to information when the gatekeepers of information (gov't, media, experts) attack and censor the people bringing up new and opposing information.
I used to have the patience for the Socratic method, but not anymore. Not with today's regressive right. Like David pointed out, they just don't see the contradictions. They don't want to. It's like little children hiding their eyes and thinking no one can see them.
Focus on the future, don't try to change their opinions about the past. What vaccies would they trust. What election system would they trust the result of. Will they agree that there might be a climate crisis coming, even if they don't belive humans caused it, and they are willing to try to take actions to limit it, if humans can. The past is not important. The importance of history, is only relevant to some in certain positions, and it is really hard to learn from history, and people that are on the wrong path, will not see parallels with the past, and that applies to the left as well, quite obvious with the anti-war left that believes it is possible to keep peace, by just having most people agree that peace is better... a better armed minority, will be able to win wars against the lesser armed majority, so wars will happen. Wars is part of human nature, and the history is full of it.
This method may work in the short run, and you may make some headway, but they'll inevitably return to social media and their favorite websites, and be right back where they started. I deal with this all the time with my family. Evidence, logic, critical thinking all go out the door after they return to their online comfort zones. And FOX "news" of course. We're so screwed.
Rather talk with people of what they would like to see in the future. What a secure election would look like to them. And you might get them to form their own opinion, and when they have, they might disagree with some of the things they see on the topic on TV and social media. Keep doing that with different issues, and at some point they may find themselves disagreeing som much that they will find other people to listen to, perhaps they will jump over to the left, or they may start moving towards the left... They might start watching CNN, thinking that at least they aren't as misaligned as Fox with their new believes. The issue though is that most sources even on the left keep talking about the past. And it is irrelevant to the left if a person believes that in 2020, the election was stolen, if they can accept Democratic candidates winning in the future. History is of much less importance than we make it out to be. And learning from history is hard, as people on the wrong path, in relation to what they could have learned from the past, will not see the parallels anyhow, that is true for people on the path to fascism today, but also of the anti-war left that thinks that peace is kept with peace. And it works against the left, trying to win over poor, working poor white people, as many of them suffer in similar ways today, as people of color in the same class. The white privilege has been of little importance since the 80s. Those who has made it mostly already have made it. For people that never made it, or families that suffer from falling on bad luck, and are now part of the lower classes, don't have white privilege in their life to rely on, to get back up. History will not change the living conditions of the poor, as reparations would only lead to more division, and would never even pass. Help every poor person, no matter what their history has been. And when people get more satisfied with their own life, their hate of others is reduced or even goes away.
when trump supporters are asked "what evidence would convince you that someone else won the election?" they always tell you "no evidence could possibly convince me that someone else won the election."
Some see evidence as a loaded term, meaning that it is material presented by certain people that some say are authorities, or trustworthy. But the actual truth is, that there has not been any presentation of actual proof, and there is no simple way of proving the election result. But since Trump supporting people in Arizona and Georgia did not cheat and make Trump the winner, the results there can be trusted. The so called dumps were not unexpected. If there were pro Trump dumps, he would have loved it. Even he knew what it came down to, he just did not like the result. As the narcissist he is, he did not want to accept the truth, and for a narcissist, when they don't want to accept the truth, they form their own reality where the truth does not exist, and they start to beileve in their own reality, even if they initially knew the real reality. What you need to focus on, is to agree on how in future elections you can both trust the result, no matter who wins. Some will say right now, we need to rig the system to make up for other states cheatin. But most will actually agree on what a fair election would look like. And if you can agree on that, you might be able to get them to accept future results, and if they go around thinking that I trust this result but the 2020 election result was false, well than that does not matter, they believe in the future results that is what counts then.
@@TheJonHolstein : there are literally no facts and no principles that conservatives can be counted on to accept. nor can conservatives be expected to respect consistency, or to behave with even the slightest degree of integrity.
@@jessicarichards8531 To win someone over one had to work with trust. It will be hard to do on a large scale, especially since the GOP politicians aren't willing. They could present actual sensible election reforms, and discuss with the democrats, to come up with sensible compromises, and that way potentially bring the voters along, but they just want to set the system up for their own side to win. But on a per person basis one can have discussions about voting security measures, and find a balanced approach that they can accept. And that person will then be less likely to just buy in to the buzz-words of politicians and news actors, as they have been involved in the process of forming their own opinion. The left also has to accept that while there might not be a lot of cheating, there are things in the American voting system, that looks a bit insecure. ID to vote, should not be controversial, and the democrats could solve the issue of access with a federal ID, at an affordable price, perhaps even discounted to people on welfare, and open to be paid for, by pro voting organisations. The mail in voting system doesn't seem all that safe, either. Not in the US, where there isn't a federal adress register, where people by law should state their actual living adress. I get that Americans would never be willing to have their information registered in that way. But, one then has to see the potential issue. Ballot harvesting, and mail in ballots can be used by the parties, to get people that can't fully grasp what they are doing to vote on the suggested candidate, by someone just claiming to help them out. Since there at least have been stories about party registration done this way, there is probably false voting as well... Those are examples of voting laws, where the left should be able to find compromise solutions, because those are potential issues, even if they never have been, those aren't exactly secure in the construct. But not enough polling stations, especially in certain areas. Not being able to hand out water or food where there are long lines, even without suggesting in any way what they think that person should vote for. Restricting the days of early voting. Giving political officials the power to overturn the result of the state, or specific regions. Are examples of voting laws that make no sense, where there should be no compromise. And many on the right would accept the arguments there. They may counter when it comes to polling places that there has to be enough in rural areas, but the counter to that is that there isn't enough in general, and that there should not be a specific fixed amount that has to be divided, there should simply be enough for everyone.
@@TheJonHolstein : sorry, but most of what you're advocating is voter suppression based on debunked right-wing conspiracy theories. the anti-politics you're peddling is also a right-wing talking point. if we want to talk about regulating voting machines to ensure their reliability and security, that'd be great, as would ensuring plentiful polling stations everywhere. governments should provide water when lines are long, but allowing partisans to give out food and water would be tantamount to political advertising, and that's why conservatives want to do it.
