Speaker 1: Today, I'm going to be speaking with Ward Farnsworth, who is dean of the University
of Texas Law School and also author of the Socratic Method A Practitioner's Handbook.
It's so great to have you on today.
I really appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Thanks for having me, David.
Good to be here.
Speaker 1: So I talk about the Socratic method with my audience frequently and I think may
be the best place to start would be when we say Socratic.
In that word, we're talking about Socrates.
So maybe we can start with the origins of why this is.
This is a method attributed to Socrates and what it is.
Speaker 3: Sure.
Well.
When people talk about the Socratic method and Socrates, what they usually mean is the
style of dialog and discourse and thinking that you see displayed by Socrates in the
dialogs of Plato.
We don't really know much about the real Socrates, whether that's how we talked.
We know that's how the literary Socrates talked.
And that's the model for the Socratic method.
Speaker 1: And the model is characterized by questions, but particular types of questions
meant to elicit a certain type of thinking.
Can you talk us through that a little bit?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think the Socratic method is the greatest tool there is for critical
thinking and for testing people's views.
It has a lot of features and they're hard to summarize quickly, but usually with Socrates
is trying to do is work with the beliefs of the person he's talking to.
Society doesn't usually say you're wrong, he says.
Can we agree on this?
Can we agree on that?
Well, but but if if we agree on those things, then what about this other thing that you
said?
It seems like there's a tension there or an issue.
So he basically talks people into contradiction with themselves, which is just, to me, a distinctly
effective way of working with people who don't agree with.
Speaker 1: One of the things that sometimes is frustrating in the modern landscape is
you might get someone to contradict themselves, but they seem unable to recognize that they've
contradicted themselves.
And so, for example, we see this frequently when I will talk to people who say that Trump
is actually the president and it's Joe Biden's fault that gas prices are high.
And it's like, Well, if Joe Biden's not really the president, how could it be his fault that
gas prices are high?
That's sort of the contradiction.
But sometimes people seem to lack an ability to even understand the contradiction.
How would the Socratic method address that?
Speaker 3: Well, first of all, if they don't think there's a contradiction, then and I'm
the one using the method, then my feeling is that's on me.
My questions have not been skillful enough.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe there isn't a contradiction.
They don't think there is one because it looks like there's one to you.
But what they mean when they say Donald Trump is really president isn't what you think they
mean.
They mean this and you think they mean that.
And so there's something additional about their meaning that you've got to get to the
bottom of that.
I just think the right way to think about this is always ask whether if you're not making
headway, it's really on them.
Take responsibility and see if you can be more empathetic and try to understand what
they mean or what they're thinking.
That's that's an important part of the Socratic method is you're trying to get people to come
around to your way of thinking.
And before you can do that, you kind of got to come around to their way of thinking or
really understand it.
And not just not just like what passes for thoughts, not what, not what passes for thought
in the minds of these people you think are idiots.
But but how they actually look at the world and why it makes sense to them.
And once you really get that, it's much easier from that standpoint to then bring them around
to something that's more like the way you look at things.
Speaker 1: One of the things that seems important in the Socratic method is a sort of humility
about our own beliefs, and it seems that the approach of asking questions can be humble
in a sense, because you're you're really trying to learn more about what the other person
believes, even if your ultimate goal is that you suspect they're wrong and you want to
change their mind at the same time.
There's sometimes the assumption that it's more persuasive to appear more confident in
what you believe.
So is there a balance that needs to be struck or is it just not true that it's more persuasive
to be confident?
Speaker 3: Well, I suppose it's hard to generalize, I'm sure there are people who are very persuaded
by confidence and not by humility, but the Socratic method, in any event, is is founded
on humility.
I mean, I know the Socratic method sounds fundamentally like a technique for questioning
other people and for trying to bring them around in it.
It's very powerful for that.
But to me, first and foremost, it's a style of thought that if you're if you really care
about these things, you try to use yourself.
So you're also you're questioning what you think and you're wondering if maybe you're
wrong.
And so when you're talking to people, you're trying to help questioning them to see things
your way.
But you're also alert to the idea that maybe you have something to learn from them.
And I think that that one byproduct of that approach is that if you're humble in that
way, you're more likely to make headway with others.
But you're also more likely to make headway in seeing your own short sightedness, which
is of course, something we should all want.
Speaker 1: Can can we talk through in practice?
How this might sort of appear in if it's happening at the Thanksgiving table is often the one
people call in.
They say, I know my uncle believes that.
I mean, we could just stick with my uncle believes Trump won.
He just believes it was stolen.
He believes Joe Biden stole it and he's going to bring it up.
And he's going to say, Can you guys believe what Joe Biden was able to get away with?
And people want sort of a framework with which they can without upsetting people without
ruining relationships?
Start a gentle Socratic inquiry.
What types of questions might we we ask in that situation?
Speaker 3: Well, good question.
I mean, the first question is, you know, is it worthwhile the Thanksgiving table to try
to chase this down?
Speaker 1: Let's assume it is.
Let's assume it is.
This person will Speaker 3: assume it is.
But I just mean, you can be Socratic about the value of using these methods.
Sure.
But but putting that to one side?
Yeah.
I mean, to me, the goal was always, can you find some common ground?
Can you find something you agree on that that you can then build from to saying something
like, you know, look what, here's what I'm interested in.
What would you be willing to talk about as evidence that the election was stolen or what's
or what are you going to count as evidence of anything?
I mean, like, let's just take something that's less controversial and just see if we can
agree on that.
How do you know that somebody else won the presidential election?
Let's talk.
Let's talk about the election we can agree on.
Right?
How do you know who won that election?
I'm just interested.
I mean, I'm really wondering, how do you how do you think about that?
Because in a sense, we don't know how we know what we read in the paper.
So what makes you so sure that somebody like that the Donald Trump won the first election
and let them explain that for a while and you say, OK, so that's interesting.
So I guess what I'm wondering now is of those things you mentioned, how many of those things
are not also present in the election you are worried about and trying to fight an election
you can agree on before you start talking about election, you can agree on.
I think it is a helpful approach, and I would just use that approach in general to try to
find a case you can agree on and then talk through what that case is about and then try
to use what you've established in your in your easy case to sort of gently ask about
the hard case.
Speaker 1: That's really interesting.
It seems there is maybe in thinking about the empathy component there as well.
There might be an opportunity also to find common ground in this conversation to say,
Do do are we on the same page that we both want whoever really won to be the president,
right?
Are we on the same page that that that's that's ultimately what we want.
We want to know who really won, but that person should definitely be the president.
It seems that might also be useful.
Speaker 3: Definitely.
But then, of course, and you know, so after I think everybody would agree on that.
It's a good thing to start with.
And then and then you'd say, OK, another question is what does it mean to say somebody really
won?
Yeah.
Like, what do you mean?
Somebody's got the most popular vote?
Or do you mean the person who won the Electoral College?
Forget about Trump for a minute.
Just what do we mean in general?
And you keep trying to build agreements on things once you have these agreements in place,
you know everything, then.
And you know, I still think that.
I mean, in these conversations, of course, you're always hopefully thinking, Look, maybe
we're in something and you can say to the person, Honestly, let me tell you if this
election was stolen, I want to know.
I mean, I don't want to live under a stolen election.
I'm sure you don't, either.
So if there's any evidence that this was stolen, I certainly would be grateful to hear about
it.
And I think you can say that.
I think anybody can say that and read it.
Speaker 1: What about with one that can be sometimes when the topic lends itself more
to the ideas of experts and who counts as an expert?
It can get much more dicey.
So, for example, we could think about COVID and vaccines, right where there's not only
a disagreement about facts, there is a disagreement or misunderstanding about who is a valid authority
and about the differences between facts and opinions.
Oftentimes, what our opinions are put out there, as if it is the type of statement that
counts as a fact when really it's only an opinion, and it seems that it's a much tougher
hill to climb, seemingly armed only with the Socratic method of questioning how.
How might would the would the application be different in such circumstances?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't think so, because you can still ask questions about other situations
where people defer to experts, like you might say.
Let's talk about some are there, are there any vaccines you do take?
Well, why do you take those, are there situations where expert opinions are enough for you?
Because there are for me?
And I think actually most of us defer to experts sometimes.
And so the question is, when can you fight a case where the answer is yes?
And then what are the features of that case?
And then how do the features of that case compare to the features of the case and the
case that's in controversy?
I think that's a Socratic idea as you always try to find something that's triggered move
over to an easier case or you can agree and then establish the things you can agree on
because usually what's going on is in the controversial case, everybody's judgment is
clouded by other features of it, by the politics of it or the rooting interest that you have,
like, almost like as a sports fan.
And so you're trying to go find a case that is not clouded by those things and establish
your principles there and then gently move over into the case.
That's giving everybody more trouble.
Speaker 1: What about specifically, when were this?
Sometimes the struggle will be when people will call me.
I might present what are you know, what I see as data and reports about a particular
issue?
And someone will say, Well, my experience is just different.
So it's an anecdote.
Right?
We're talking about anecdotes versus empiricism, and it's very easy and reflexive to say, that's
an anecdote and we need to just look at.
We need to look at broader evidence, but people are often pretty resistant to that.
They'll say, No, I mean, listen, this is what I experienced.
And so this is real to me in some sense.
What sort of advice do you have in that type of situation?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I think first, just just listen to people.
I mean, nobody's gonna listen to you unless they feel like you listen to them.
So if your immediate reaction is obvious contempt for their experience, then you're just not
going to be off to an effective start.
But let's imagine that you've done that.
And I think at that point, maybe the most helpful way to reason is to ask, Well, how
do they feel when people make similar claims that are anecdotal or about their own experience,
but who they don't agree with?
I mean, you know, because that's the kind of claim that people can't stand when it's
made by those on the other side.
So trying to think of an example, I mean, that's what I think in general is if you if
you can flip the politics in a situation like, imagine exactly what you're saying, but imagine
somebody on the other side making that claim what you know you can ask me, what would you
say to them?
What would you think of the strength of that claim?
I mean, wouldn't I?
I'm not.
I'm not trying to tell you how you feel, but how do you think?
How do you think you'd feel?
And of course, it's always perfect.
If you can think of an actual example and say, Well, you know what you're saying?
Reminds me of somebody I knew that you may have heard about who actually made a very
similar claim, but except that they they love everything you hate.
And I just wonder, how would you work with that person and say, Well, that person just
wrote.
Well, I know you think that, but they do.
They don't think that's what would you know?
I guess, I guess we probably say to them is their ideas about what counts as evidence
don't seem very strong.
And then maybe you've got a name wrote, I mean, these are these are not conversations
that you know, you can expect, which you can expect to turn somebody 180 degrees.
The question is, can you make a little headway?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems that it's although there is a sort of Socratic toolbox that it's
really more of a framework.
Is that fair to say than a than a sort of how to?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right, I mean, it is there is sort of a tool box that a lot
of techniques that Socrates uses, but it's also just a mindset and a stance of sort of
humility and awareness of your own arrogance and ignorance.
You're trying to learn from others in good faith.
So I don't think it's paint by numbers scheme for questioning.
But if you do study the method in the book, the Socratic method that I've written tries
to provide some sort of guidance on that.
I think it provides you with an approach