The Socratic Method, as outlined in Plato’s Theaetetus, is a process of questioning that inspires critical thinking and analysis. Primarily the method was designed for moral and philosophical enquiry but the technique has been used in many other fields. The strength of the Socratic approach lies in its ability to challenge assumptions and negative thought patterns.

“Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.”

Socrates

Directive or non-directive?

The challenge with using the Socratic method is that the questioner needs to be very self-aware. The direction of the dialogue can be swayed by the questioner and they can sway the direction and emphasis of the dialogue. The person initiating the question naturally takes on a leading role. The Socratic method allows the questioner to subtly challenge certain ideas, evoke particular thoughts or get the subject to establish a particular logical viewpoint. This can be done in either a directive or non-directive way.

If the questioner assumes that they already know the correct answer they will ask leading questions. The technique can be seen as creating leading, loaded or weighted questions. Used in this way it can be largely convergent in the thinking it inspires. It directs towards and converges upon the questioner’s point of view, rather than helping to clarify the premise of the questionee. If this is the aim then the method can be used as a debating technique to ‘win’ an argument. This is a problem in some contexts, for example in coaching.

Therefore even though it is non-directive in style it can be quite directive in its application. For a leader and manager, this can be very useful when helping someone to see an error in their work, thinking or behaviour. Instead of directly criticising or pointing out the fault, using the Socratic method you can help a person to see the illogical or erroneous nature of their approach.

“I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think”

Socrates

Watch-outs when using the approach

One danger to this method, if you use it in the directive style, is that the conversation can descend into an argument. Debating can take this Socratic approach but when people are divided in viewpoint then this can descend into pure rhetoric. It is then about point scoring or winning. The value of listening to the other person and discussing alternative viewpoints are lost.  This is often what happens in political debates.

At worst this becomes an exercise in confirmation bias rather than enquiry. The resulting argument undermines potential learning that should take place.  Therefore this descent should be avoided.

My advice is to remain humble. As Socrates himself said:

“The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing.”

Socrates

As you look at the evidence for and against a position it may turn out that the wrong assumption lies with you. I have certainly found that out before! Remember the advice of Stephen Covey:

“Seek first to understand, then to be understood.”

Stephen Covey

Nancy Kline uses a similar process (in terms of steps) to the Socratic method in her Thinking Partnerships. The difference is that the Thinking Environment approach and the nature of the questions used make it less directive or confrontational and therefore better for coaching and mentoring.

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Socrates

A question framework for the Socratic method

Here is an example 5 step framework for this type of Socratic questioning:

1. Receive

First, receive what the other person has to say. Listen to the other person’s premise, view or argument. And remember you have to properly listen to be able to do the next step.

2. Reflect

Sum up the person’s view-point or argument and reflect it back. Do this by first getting them to clarify and sum up their position and then by paraphrasing or repeating it back to them.

3. Refine

Ask them to provide their evidence. Find out why they are thinking or acting in that way. Discover the facts, beliefs or assumptions that underpin their standpoint. Often the premise will be based on assumptions rather than hard facts. Challenge these assumptions to test their validity.

Use further questions to uncover the fallacy of any wrong presuppositions. These are often ‘why’ questions. For example: “why do you think that?” Sometimes it can be helpful to construct the ‘why’ question as a ‘what’ question for example: “what makes you think that?” This is because why questions can often feel confrontational.

At times you may need to provide contrary evidence to challenge an assumption but try and structure this as a question too if possible. If there is a cognitive fallacy (a wrong way of thinking) then try and get them to find an exception (or if necessary provide one) that proves their own theory wrong. Discover and explore this circumstance to discover new, better thinking. In this way, you are refining the basic premise of the discussion.

4. Re-state

Now that you have refined your thinking get them to reformulate and re-state their position. If they see that they had a wrong assumption, get them to adapt or renew their wording and then re-state it.

5. Re-start

Now they have a new viewpoint you can go back to the start of the process. You can assess the new premise and challenge any further wrong assumptions in their thinking. This iterative or dialectic process helps to drill down to the core of the issue. This method becomes a cycle of dialogue.

The goal of the Socratic method

And that’s it. Simple. The question technique framework is easy to remember; the skill comes in applying it. The challenge, as noted before is to really listen to the other person and truly commit to coming to a better-shared understanding of the issue. This may come from challenging assumptions or illogical viewpoints but the goal of the Socratic method is not about winning an argument, it is about finding understanding, knowledge and truth.

“Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.”

Socrates

For more on the development of questioning techniques see Beyond the 5Ws: Ask Questions like a Philosopher.

If you would like access to some bonus content and get updates then please do sign up for my email list.

References

Ballif, M and Moran, M G (2005) Classical Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources, Westport: Praeger

Covey, S R (1989) The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, London: Simon and Schuster

Kline, N (1999) Time to Think. London: Ward Lock

Waterfield, R (trans.) (1987) Plato’s Thaeatetus, London: Penguin