https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/k5td4z/is_socratic_method_the_best_way_to_change/
created by turquoise8 on 03/12/2020 at 08:20 UTC
239 upvotes, 21 top-level comments (showing 21)
I know this one doesn't have a single right answer but i want to hear your opinions about this. After reading a bit of Plato's writings i felt like i was arguing the wrong way my whole life. Leading someone to your own conclusion in a polite way sounds much more effective than openly advocating your beliefs, beliefs the listener is probably not ready accept.
If that's the thing, why don't more people use the Socratic method? Looks like we still get into heated arguments most of the time. What are your opinions?
Comment by AutoModerator at 03/12/2020 at 08:20 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules[1] before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.
2: /message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy
Comment by [deleted] at 03/12/2020 at 08:45 UTC
38 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by sworm09 at 03/12/2020 at 09:53 UTC
38 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think that spelling out the implications of a belief is incredibly important for philosophical purposes, but not for rhetorical purposes.
Generally people get rather annoyed if you reveal that there are inconsistencies in their position, and annoyance isn’t the best way to change people’s minds about anything. Socratic questioning can easily come off to other people as being cheeky, especially when the questioner isn’t offering any substantial positions of their own.
Now if both parties are doing it for the sake of discussion, that’s something entirely different and is more likely to be productive. However even then I don’t think the goal is persuasion, but rather discussion.
Comment by DomesticatedVagabond at 03/12/2020 at 09:34 UTC
133 upvotes, 7 direct replies
A channel called Let's Chat[1] got started a couple years ago and it's main aim was to set up a table and use something like the socratic method to engage in a conversation with people about what they believe.
1: https://www.youtube.com/c/LetsChat
I think they're an interesting channel because some participants typically had a kind of "hmm, I'm not sure what to say. That makes me thinks" but some also simply said they hadn't changed their mind, even when they're unable to answer questions about either contradictions or difficult applications about their beliefs.
The socratic method has its limitations. It's more time consuming, isn't always the most applicable, and requires *both* participants to engage in good faith. For example, this chapter[2] shows how unique a place social media is for conversation and arguments. There is no longer necessarily a conversation between a defined audience but a potential universal audience to which a person must be aware of, and may perform to.
2: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2172&context=bb_pubs
Comment by LeFireheart at 03/12/2020 at 10:28 UTC
27 upvotes, 4 direct replies
I think the Socratic method is an amazing way to teach, not necessarily change someone's mind. During my CELTA (English teaching certificate) I was taught to not tell my students that they were wrong, rather to ask guiding questions if they were. Why did you use that tense? Why at that person? So they can think for themselves and learn to solve the next problem.
In Plato's work, there's a similar example of the slave boy whom Socrates teaches the pythagorean theorem (If I remember correctly). He teaches him not by telling the boy the theorem, rather allowing him to discover it by himself by asking the questions that guide him towards learning the truth.
That's, in my opinion, the way to use the Socratic method.
As an aside, Socrates himself didn't try to use the Socratic method to convince the jury at his own trial that they were wrong. If that's not a testament to the fact that his method isn't for changing people's minds, then I don't know what is.
Comment by voltimand at 03/12/2020 at 12:55 UTC
21 upvotes, 3 direct replies
For what it's worth, Socrates in Plato's dialogues is never able to change anyone's mind. He doesn't succeed at this even once in the whole Platonic corpus. I think that Plato's point is that Socrates' method is limited and ineffective.
Comment by mediaisdelicious at 03/12/2020 at 14:06 UTC
8 upvotes, 1 direct replies
There is no “best way” to change someone’s mind. Different situations require different methods. This is a question for people who study and measure persuasive interventions in communication studies.
Comment by [deleted] at 03/12/2020 at 09:40 UTC
7 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by Rotze at 03/12/2020 at 11:36 UTC
6 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Jacques Rancière makes an interesting point in his book *The Ignorant Schoolmaster*. For him, the Socratic method is actually a way of stultification, of making the student 'dumber'. The student may gain knowledge he didn't have before but the way this happens is by confronting him that he does not know, thus making him dependent on the teacher.
Rancière presents another 'method' of teaching using the example of Joseph Jacotot, a French teacher who taught in Belgium without knowing the Flemish language. He thereby challenges the idea that a teacher has to know more than the students and introduces what he calls the emancipatory teacher (in opposition to the stultifying teacher).
Comment by 1shmeckle at 03/12/2020 at 12:43 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The Socratic method is useful for teaching to some degree. As a law student, I didn't find it very enlightening in and of itself but it forced me to try to figure out what I got wrong. That process was useful since I would be annoyed that I sounded stupid so would want to find the answer to prove at least to myself that I understood the material better than my professor made it seem.
This should tell you what you need to know, however. I was never convinced, my mind never changed. I was just annoyed and that's not a great way to convince someone. By the time I had my own students, I had given up on using more than light Socratic method as a teaching tool.
Rhetoric to convince is something special and it really varies. A trial lawyer trying to convince a jury will take an altogether different approach than a lawyer trying to convince a judge. A brand trying to convince you to buy cereal will use different rhetoric than a brand trying to convince you to buy lingerie. A politician trying to convince his supporters to accept an unappealing policy is different than a politician trying to convince skeptical voters to change their potential vote. For a real life example, look at the past election. This isn't a criticism of either candidate, they both with varying degrees of success employed radically different rhetorical tools due to the differences in their goals and audience. This is to say that different people and situations will require different approaches. So, the best method to change someone's mind isn't a particular method - you want multiple tools in your proverbial toolbox - it's the ability to read a person or situation and understand what approach works best at that time.
Comment by [deleted] at 03/12/2020 at 10:52 UTC*
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by Karsticles at 03/12/2020 at 17:47 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The Socratic approach is superior to argumentation, without a doubt. Why do so few people do it? Because.....!
1. It takes a lot of practice and training.
2. It requires that you understand perspectives outside of your own.
3. It requires that you know how to appeal to different people.
4. It takes a lot of time and energy.
5. It is oriented toward helping people understand, and most people just want to "win".
Comment by pluralofjackinthebox at 03/12/2020 at 11:07 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
You might want to look into the Elaboration Likelihood Model[1] of persuasion, which receives a lot of attention in the social sciences.
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaboration_likelihood_model
The idea is that on subjects a person is willing to give a lot of attention or care to, they are more likely to change their mind if they come to conclusions themselves, if they put in some effort and add something of themselves to the mix (ie they elaborate upon it). Leading questions are very useful here, which is why you see them all over in advertising (eg “Do you want to loose weight now?”) So at this level the Socratic method is supported to a certain extent.
This isn’t true at all for subjects a person doesn’t care about much and isn’t paying attention to — persuasion can happen much more superficially then.
Comment by [deleted] at 03/12/2020 at 17:02 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by QuantumWhale at 03/12/2020 at 16:37 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I remember discussing this with my teacher once. We came to the conclusion that the Socratic method isn't very good at convincing your opponent (as others have mentioned they're more likely to just get annoyed) but that it's an excellent tool for discrediting your opponent - especially in front of an audience. So it is useful for changing people's minds. Just not the someone your arguing against.
Comment by Ch_IV_TheGoodYears at 03/12/2020 at 23:01 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The best way to change a mind is through an emotional experience. The 2nd and 3rd best ways are through emotion or through experience.
The Socratic method usually gets a person to experience the phenomenon of either not knowing why you believe a thing or seeing the thing you believed is in fact wrong both arrived at by your own attempts to answer questions.
So instead of a person telling you your definition of courage is wrong, you end up telling yourself it is wrong, in a round about way, thus experiencing your own wrongness, thus changing your mind.
Is the Socratic method the best way to change a mind? Perhaps it is in terms of changing minds about things we know in an articulated way.
Comment by laidbackmillennial at 03/12/2020 at 13:12 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
What I have observed is that in most situations that demand patience and perseverance, most of us end up reacting impulsively with a fringe of different emotions on display. The 'want' to be the correct one becomes a 'need' when there's some amount of retaliation and the room for Socratic method gets narrower as the impulses and emotions take over. In my opinion, the Socratic method works only in a controlled setup like a formal debate, discussion etc. where the participants have to be open to listen well and act sensibly at all times. It also works well while reflecting on a particular event from the past, where the intention is to analyse, understand some underlying cause, seek closure etc.
Comment by chrisevans9629 at 04/12/2020 at 02:24 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think a good example of the Socratic method in terms of difficult topics, religious, morality, politics, etc... is street epistemology. I'd definitely recommend you to check out Anthony Magnabosco[1] who uses this method extensively and shows some of the possible limitations with the Socratic method. The Socratic method requires one to be willing to engage in questioning, which some people may refuse to question some beliefs they hold. In this case a more direct approach may be necessary. Another weakness is that it often takes a long time as it did in Plato's writings and often didn't lead to people changing their positions.
1: https://www.youtube.com/c/AnthonyMagnabosco210/videos?view=0&sort=p&flow=grid
Comment by [deleted] at 04/12/2020 at 02:46 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think the goal is to lead them to their own conclusion, but if you end up agreeing and your opinion doesn’t change from what it originally was, it would look like that.
Comment by Jasong222 at 04/12/2020 at 05:08 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I actually use the socratic style in many of my debates. Honestly, much of the time, particularly with hot topics or ingrained opinions, I find that the person I'm talking basically weasles out or changes the subject or deflects and can't be brought back around to the actual topic. It's kinda maddening. Another poster wrote that SM requires participants to be acting in good faith and I would say that that is true on a deeper level than it at first seems.
In those situations I find myself spending more time trying to keep people to stick to the topic than I do actually exploring the topic.
It's probably a defense mechanism, sure. Or poor critical thinking skills. But the result is the same- often not a very effective discussion method.
Comment by [deleted] at 29/12/2020 at 09:07 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]