I suspect Socratic questioning works much better in person as there’s less reason to ask leading questions. Here, I find that there is more pressure to insert your views into the question to avoid lots of back and forth.
I’ve never seen Socratic questioning work in person because it’s always clear there’s a trap coming and people don’t want to be trapped taking views because the questions slowly destroy the nuance of their views. It’s even worse here
I mean, at least that was the whole point of Socrates questioning, wasn’t it? Maybe we need a different term for something that is less adversarial, but compared to Plato’s original texts, the questions here are much less leading.
Was that the whole point of Socratic questions? Would he have invented a shitty thing like that? Would it have survived time if it was just an elaborate trap technique? (seems strange to me if that were the case)
Meta: Post comments discussing this experiment here
I suspect Socratic questioning works much better in person as there’s less reason to ask leading questions. Here, I find that there is more pressure to insert your views into the question to avoid lots of back and forth.
I’ve never seen Socratic questioning work in person because it’s always clear there’s a trap coming and people don’t want to be trapped taking views because the questions slowly destroy the nuance of their views. It’s even worse here
Sq is a tool. In that sense it can be used badly like a knife or in useful ways (like a knife).
What would make sq genuinely more useful again?
I mean, at least that was the whole point of Socrates questioning, wasn’t it? Maybe we need a different term for something that is less adversarial, but compared to Plato’s original texts, the questions here are much less leading.
Was that the whole point of Socratic questions? Would he have invented a shitty thing like that? Would it have survived time if it was just an elaborate trap technique? (seems strange to me if that were the case)