
Show HN: How to discuss with opinionated people using the Socratic method[video] - xchip
We all have an opinionated colleague, manager or even a relative. Discussing issues may get tricky and frustrating. In some cases this can end up in aggressive debates where nobody changes opinion.<p>I came across a YouTube channel where a guy uses the Socratic method to discuss god believes with random people, in a few questions he gets people to lower their level confidence. On top of that his discussions are friendly, last only for 5 minutes and he is often greeted at the end of the conversation.<p>This video shows off the Socratic method in action:<p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=F5EpfExorQQ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=F5EpfExorQQ</a><p>Here is the trailer of the channel:<p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=moApG7z2pkY" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=moApG7z2pkY</a>
======
damnfine
The Socratic Method is one of persuasion, not discussion. The effort is to
guide the person to your idea, on their own, so to speak. This is a poor
method of actual discussion. In essence, you become the opinionated one.

~~~
cJ0th
> This is a poor method of actual discussion. In essence, you become the
> opinionated one.

Exactly. And this becomes very clear in the video. The interviewer harps on
about the "reliability of faith" without really listening to what Antony is
saying. Different people who are having different faiths but still believe in
the same thing is only illogical if you wish to see it like that. All programs
in your computer, for instance, can safely assume that memory does exist.
There is no point for a program to find out whether something like memory is
real. I am not talking about finding out whether space is left etc. I am
merely saying that a piece of software does not need a science library to
investigate the existence of memory. Sure, sometimes you don't receive
something from memory when you need it, sometimes bad things happen when you
work with the bits it gives you and so on. But questioning the existence of
memory is besides the point.

Now lets imagine another program which also "believes" in the existance of
memory The user uses this program to remove the other program. In other words,
two programs who have the same "faith" kill each other. This is not a
contradiction.

Someone should do the Socrates on him to elicit why "reliability" is something
one has to discuss when it comes to faith. I am pretty sure his answers would
also be contradictory within a short amount of time.

~~~
m_mueller
I think you're concentrating on the wrong word - reliability. That doesn't
seem the central assumption of Anthony here, it's just an attribute to arrive
at the central assumption: That there is a universal truth, i.e we all live in
the same world, only our models of that world are different (i.e. subjective).

~~~
cJ0th
> That doesn't seem the central assumption of Anthony here,

Yes, that's my point. It's the interviewer who has this idea that faith should
be reliable and that's what I was questioning. Or did you mean the interviewer
(Anthony with an h) ? I am a bit confused right now..

~~~
m_mueller
Yes I mean the interviewer. Your critique of is argument is based on his use
of reliability - I find that tangential. His main assumption is that of a
universal truth - faith being unreliable is just what follows. So are you
saying that there is no universal truth or that faith is somehow exempt from
the search for truth?

------
JohnKacz
(Slightly off-topic) In a graduate theological program I was introduced to the
idea of "second naiveté." Simply, if the faith we inherit is a naive one and a
process like a graduate education deconstructs such a faith, second naiveté
looks like a choice then to return to an assembled faith held in tension with
the modern criticism used in the deconstruction.

It's an intensive and disruptive process that I'm not sure many want or are
able to go through, but I wish would. The key here is to walk through the
entire process (one which is actually cyclical in my opinion) with the
individual. Anything less seems malicious or inconsiderate at best. Said
another way, to destroy someones worldview or belief system (even flawed or
dangerous ones) and not help them rebuild something is not going make the
world a nicer place to live in.

~~~
xchip
The point of this was to learn how to question decisions at work, and doing so
in a way that you will be appreciated. The god believe was just an example of
a believe that usually is hard to challenge.

------
kelvin0
Many things are at play here: 1) the interviewer has a calm and very open
demeanor. 2) He is able to build rapport with that person (first URL video)
quite quickly. 3) The interviewer obviously has an 'advantage' because they
have thought about the subject and are focused on it, which is not the case
for the interviewee being 'ambushed'.

I think given some time and thought that interviewee would be better able to
gather his thoughts and better articulate them.

Quite simply, taking the time and listening to what other people are saying
and really giving their opinion some importance goes a long way into both
parties learning something new, without having to 'persuade' them of anything.

~~~
zebrafish
I've had this thought recently, that staged debate is not necessarily a great
way to settle disputes. It mostly relies on the skill of the participants to
think critically on the fly or their anticipation of the opponents questions
and their practiced retort.

Effective discussion or debate should take place over time such that each
participant has time to logically organize their thoughts or gather more
evidence/ evaluate the evidence presented by the opponent.

"Ambushing" average people on the street in their sweats headed to a math test
isn't exactly fair. To be honest, it isn't much different than what your
typical atheist purports to oppose. I have found that people are typically
against faith based religion because it's pushed on youth by families and
takes advantage of their malleable mind.

You should probably allow for people to be in the correct state of mind for
these discussions, not take advantage of their unpreparedness. This video
makes it seem like he can only engage these people when he clearly has the
upper hand.

------
abathur
For the curious, the "Street Epistemology" movement, which employs the
Socratic method, was coined/outlined by Peter Boghossian in his book "A Manual
for Creating Atheists" ([https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-
Peter-Boghos...](https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-
Boghossian/dp/1939578094)). You can find more about it's goals and methods by
searching around for street epistemology, or by reading the book. It's a
relatively quick read.

~~~
xchip
I think discussions at work would be shorter and more meaningful if we all
used this method.

Before I knew this method existed I noticed a colleague had this approach with
my claims and it did wonders :D

------
jcmoscon
Funny thing that he is using this Socratic method only to religious believes.
What about using it on science believes like evolution for instance. The guy
in this video did it and it's interesting hear how people blindly believe in
whatever science says without thinking too much about it. Watch this
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ)

~~~
0xfeba
A Ray Comfort movie, seriously? He is king of editing footage to make people
look the way he wants. Watch around 6:15 as PZ Myers is abruptly cut off
before he can explain why we don't see fish change into bears, or whatever
impossible goal post Comfort has setup.

Comforts insistence on "kinds" is not based on any science. He just claims
that because we only see a bunch of small steps, A->B, B-C, E-F, etc. changes
in genetics, we will never see A-Z changes. That is, we can only witness
incremental changes in DNA, therefore large changes cannot happen because
reasons. He's given and shown multiple examples of the process of natural
genetic drift, change, etc. and then proclaims that it can only go so far, up
to "kinds" without providing any evidence for this limit. Also without
defining what a "kind" is.

Sorry but this man irks me. He is not honest.

He also is known as "banana man" for this pretty weak argument from design:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KqJuITAVWc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KqJuITAVWc)

------
SKYRHO_
Details the socratic method and its purpose for discovering the true essence
of knowledge through refined definition:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB4MYGInRl4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB4MYGInRl4)

------
megamindbrian
Everyone's faith is different. This guy can't define everyone's faith in one
Youtube video. As a scientist I am trained to question anything and
everything. As a spiritual person, my God is knowing what the right answer is
before knowing the reason why or the purpose of the question. If an answer is
already written down, God is the life that came before me. If I guess what the
right answer is before, that is the God inside of all of us. How does an
Atheist explain intuition?

~~~
zebrafish
I would argue that intuition is an evolutionary construct that is not actually
intuited but is an aggregation of many small pieces of data which biases your
expectation of an outcome.

I'm having trouble coming up with an example of a kind of pure intuitive
experience that I've had along the lines of what I think you're talking about.
If you can give a good example of what you're talking about, I think that
would be helpful.

I say all of this as a former atheist who has recently converted to some form
of theism that I haven't quite figured out yet.

------
xchip
Any idea why this has been flagged? Having meaningful discussions is crucial
in a work environment.

I have seen posts about Alzheimer, resilience, psychology... Using it do
discuss god believes was a kind of stress test to prove that any topic can be
addressed succesfully.

Mods, any help please? Thanks!

------
kelukelugames
Show HN is not for videos or blog posts. Please update title.

~~~
xchip
Thanks for the remark kelukelugames, I cannot remove the "Show HN", the edit
link is not showing up. So sorry!

------
RoutinePlayer
I'd more impressed if this could be done via a chat channel. Face-to-face
people are subject to the charm of the interviewer.

~~~
xchip
true, but when you are discussing things in a meeting or with an architect you
have to deal with being face-to-face

------
neonnoodle
No, YOU shut up!

