
Socratic method to teaching by asking - mbparsa
http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html
======
quadrangle
It's complicated.

I teach for living, and I want to do this all the time. But too often, we
cover a tenth of the material in the same time because it takes much longer.
Things sink in better, and this teaches the students how to think, but still…

Watch a David Attenborough documentary where there's little hinting and
foreshadowing, he just knows that he's got 50 minutes to tell you all about
the way, e.g., different creatures raise their young. It jumps to just sharing
the most valuable core insights. It's superb, much less waste of time than
most other approaches (all that crap about here's some researcher, let's watch
them walk the hall to their office while we hint about the cool insight they
are going to tell us…)

Sometimes, just telling students some insight gives them the understanding and
you jump to Socratic stuff later based on that foundation. Just like the
example of binary numbers is built on the kids learning all this other stuff.
Try to use Socratic method to get the kids to count at all in the first place,
and you're up for quite a long process. One that is worthwhile but where you
might just need the kid counting sooner so they can participate in the soccer
game and keep score or whatever and not have to Socratically understand
everything.

There's this idea of competitive vs enhancing technologies. Teach kids
Socratically and then take the teacher away and you're left with kids who are
better learners. Teach kids by rote and take the teacher away, they are more
helpless. But refuse rote and do everything Socratically and you get students
who have better mental processes but don't have enough lifetimes to go through
understanding the world. Sometimes, they just need to be given the facts so
they can move on. A good teacher makes these judgment calls based on their
particular circumstances.

~~~
adrianratnapala
Yes, and I suspect the main complication is the learner.

I instinctively teach socratically, even when I don't mean to. But when I was
a post-doc, I had a student who usually couldn't answer my questions or make
any progress no matter how much I tried to break a problem into bite sized
pieces.

Then along came the proffessor, who would just calmly and simply _tell_ the
guy the thing that I had been trying to explain socratically. And the student
had no trouble understanding.

~~~
flukus
Did he really understand or could he just parrot an answer? Generally I find
if you can't step through with someone taking the socratic approach then you
don't truly understand it. Not to say there's not room for facts, particularly
at the boundaries of our knowledge, but from the description I get the
impression that you were trying to teach and the professor wanted someone to
recite.

~~~
adrianratnapala
There is no question of parroting, as these was not classroom exercises, but
discussions between grown-ups trying to grapple with something difficult in
the laboratory. After the Professor's explicit explanations, the student was
able to carry on intelligently with the discussion and did not get stuck as he
did with my Socratic explanations.

That still leaves the possibility that he only understood things in a rote-ish
way. But if so, that was enough to get him unblocked and thinking about the
other related stuff we were talking about. That's valuable in itself, and will
contribute to his understanding of the original sticking point.

------
noahdesu
I was a graduate student advised by a dedicated practitioner of the Socratic
method. My experience showed me that this method is incredibly powerful, both
to teach students to think, and later as an educator in our research lab, as a
method for honing my own understanding.

However... there is a lot of effort that must be put into the style of its
application. My mentor didn't know when to turn it off, and never seemed to
get the timing quite right when explaining that we were involved in this
uncommon methodology. This may be less of an issue for certain categories of
content being taught, but we were working on low-level kernel concurrency
control mechanisms. It was a challenge.

When I started as an educator in our research lab, I realized that I had
completely internalized this methodology. And as time went on I realized that
the method allowed me to easily fall into a trap where I felt and acted
superior to others, didn't inform people about the methodology, and likely
came off as an asshole.

I continue to use this method with success. Students generally develop a lot
of independence quite quickly, but it has been a challenge knowing when to
turn off, and remembering to let everyone involved know that it is a teaching
style rather than my own weird behavior.

~~~
ismail
how would one go about learning this effectively?

~~~
ddebernardy
Basically never take any explanation as a given (and acknowledge and embrace
not knowing).

One could argue that kids know the method quite well when they're around 4
years old and subsequently unlearn it:

\- Why?

\- [Explanation]

\- Why?

\- [Explanation]

\- Why?

\- [Explanation]

\- Why?

[Starts ripping hair out.]

\- [Explanation]

\- Why?

[Rips more hair out.]

\- [Explanation]

[More of the same until adult loses patience or kid runs out of questions. If
kid never gives in...]

\- Why?

\- Just because!

^^^ This is how you unlearned it.

~~~
deelowe
You jest, but "5 whys" is a real tool:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys)

------
unoti
There’s a classic book called _The Goal_ [1] which is an outstanding example
of teaching using the Socratic method. The basic lessons of the book can also
change the way you think about business in general and software engineering in
particular, as a bonus. One important concept for example is to liken
unreleased software to a big pile of inventory in a warehouse: the inventory
doesn’t do the company any good until it is paid for by a customer. Similarly,
software doesn’t do any good until it is providing value in production.

Although it is a business book, The entire book is written as a novel. The
author talks in the intro about how showing the Socratic method in practice is
one of his key goals.

It’s also excellent on Audible. The follow-up book, _The Critical Chain_ , is
about project management and is also life-changing with its awesome concepts.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Goal-Process-Ongoing-
Improvement/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/Goal-Process-Ongoing-
Improvement/dp/0884270610)

~~~
nikofeyn
i just learned about _the goal_ a few days ago. there's also a graphic novel
version of the book: _the goal: a business graphic novel_

[https://www.amazon.com/Goal-Business-Graphic-
Novel/dp/088427...](https://www.amazon.com/Goal-Business-Graphic-
Novel/dp/0884272079)

~~~
BraveNewCurency
There is also an IT version called The Phoenix Project. Same story, but in a
computer biz.

------
jimhefferon
People on HN are often interested in Math and in education. I'll mention the
Journal of Inquiry-Based Learning in Mathematics
[http://www.jiblm.org/](http://www.jiblm.org/).

(Just from my personal experience: I teach the Intro to Proofs course in this
way, and use a book on proofs that I wrote in this style
[http://joshua.smcvt.edu/proofs](http://joshua.smcvt.edu/proofs). It has a lot
of advantages. One is that at the end of the semester everyone, even those on
the lower half of the bell curve, is still highly involved and understanding
everything that is happening. That's important to me; for instance some of the
folks in the room will go on to be teachers, either in high school or in
elementary school.)

------
wahern
If you're interested in pursuing this method consistently with children, see
[https://www.greatbooks.org/](https://www.greatbooks.org/).

The Great Books Foundation is primarily known for developing curriculum
material utilizing the so-called great books of Western science and philosophy
--mostly curated chapters and excerpts, actually. Perhaps less well known (or
at least less appreciated) is that the material is intended to be taught in
discussion groups where discussion leaders (aka teachers) utilize the Socratic
method. To that end, the discussion guides include example questions to help
the leader guide the discussion. Traditional teachers' materials also include
questions to ask of students, but the Foundation's material (both the readings
and the teachers' aids) is singularly focused on applying the Socratic method
and is much more useful to that aim. I believe they also provide guides to
help discussion leaders learn how to apply the Socratic method, which can very
taxing, especially if you haven't experienced the style as teacher or student.

Law schools in the U.S. have used the Socratic method for the past 100 years,
though that's unfortunately beginning to change. It's arguably easier for
professors to apply this methodology in law school because failure is still an
option--it's still the students responsibility to learn the material, whether
or not it was presented in class. I'm not surprised that as law schools have
succumbed to grade inflation and sought to minimize attrition rates that the
Socratic method is being pushed out. In any event, it's much more taxing for
the teacher if you must present every minor detail (however briefly) of a
topic in order to test on it later, especially in light of all the mandatory
testing; so taxing that the Socratic method simply isn't practical in most
school environments. It's a real shame because rigorous Socratic instruction
teaches one how to learn, and it pays lifelong dividends. People always say
kids need to be taught how to learn. Well, there's a proven, millennia-old
methodology for doing that....

------
coffeemug
Maybe I'm not clever enough, but I found that the Socratic method never worked
for me. If you ask most people a question that makes them aware of a
contradiction they don't generally say "that was such a clever way to have me
see the flaws in my argument, thank you!" Instead, motivated cognition kicks
in and they double down.

A much better way is to ask how much money people would be willing to bet on
their argument. That _immediately_ aligns their motivations with getting a
correct prediction-- a much better way to get people to see the flaws in their
argument (including your own).

~~~
smogcutter
Note that this problem is not unrelated to Socrates getting executed. The guy
made a lot of enemies.

------
ihaveajob
To counter the positive feedback about this technique, I'd like to point that
when the person on the learning side (answering the questions) has not asked
to be taught anything, the teacher (asking questions) can come across as a
condescending prick. This is especially true if the content is a matter of
opinion, not statements of fact. I have become sensitized to this and it makes
my blood boil when I notice it happen.

~~~
robbles
That's true regardless of the teaching technique though, isn't it? Having
someone lecture at you because they assume your knowledge is lacking is the
part that makes it condescending, IMO.

~~~
miceeatnicerice
Well, yes - but being speculatively questioned is more infuriating because
it's pretending to be the exact opposite of what it really is, as long as the
questioner is happily taking a position of authority on the issue - which they
are, as they're the one who's set the question in the first place. It's like a
fly looking at a quivering piece of silk and imagining the worst, even if the
spider's miles off.

What you want, instead of questions, are themes - and the willingness to make
yourself ridiculous through positive speculations.

------
smogcutter
I've spent a good amount of time tutoring elementary and high school students,
and I've found that the current focus on metrics and testing really hamstrings
the socratic method.

The problem is that the kids have been trained to never give wrong answers.
They don't see a question as part of a dialogue, they see it as a quiz. So
when they don't know the answer they either shut down completely, or take a
guess that's unhelpful because there's no reasoning behind it that you can
push further.

For it to work, the students really need to understand your expectations right
from the jump. Once they get that you don't care whether answers are right or
wrong, but only that they're thoughtful, you can do great things.

On a side note, I believe the "Socratic method" is often mislabeled, or at
least misunderstood. It's not simply asking a series of leading questions.
Broadly, Socrates didn't set out to teach people things he knew, but that they
didn't know the things they thought they did. The assumption is that the
student has a base of knowledge that the teacher is going to interrogate.

------
jancsika
> Further, in the case of binary numbers, I found that when you used this
> sequence of questions with impatient or math-phobic adults who didn't want
> to have to think but just wanted you to "get to the point", they could not
> correctly answer very far into even the above sequence

That could be because the effectiveness of the Socratic method depends on the
students' ignorance of the Socratic method. The more familiar one becomes with
the technique, the less patience one has for being relegated to receiving end
of a Socratic lesson.

Also, adults must contend with the added work of differentiating a good faith
Socratic method from a bad faith Socratic bomb. If I want to hide my
ignorance, spread my ideological, or even merely troll you, I'll just keep
repeating the low-effort pattern of deconstructing your position with more
incisive questions, none of which I have answers for myself.

~~~
adrianratnapala
_If I want to hide my ignorance, spread my ideological, or even merely troll
you, I 'll just keep repeating the low-effort pattern of deconstructing your
position with more incisive questions, none of which I have answers for
myself._

Which is what the Socrates character in Platos dialog seems to spend all his
time doing. If he is such a troll even in the _friendly_ retellings, can you
imagine what a prick he must have been in real life?

~~~
jancsika
> Which is what the Socrates character in Platos dialog seems to spend all his
> time doing.

But that is a ruse. The character of Socrates knows the answers ahead of time,
or at least most of the possible paths the dialogue could take. Otherwise he
couldn't achieve the 100% success rate of guiding his partner to reveal the
essence of whatever the original topic was.

If he was hiding his ignorance there would have been fruitless digressions. If
he was an ideologue his incisive questioning would be the hypocritical
response to his partner pointing out a fallacy in his own reasoning. If he was
a troll he would have added nothing relevant to the discussions he
interrupted.

Edit: typo

~~~
adrianratnapala
Perhaps I am putting too much emphasis on _Euthyphro_ , which does end at an
impasse.

Or perhaps you are putting too much emphasis on things like _The Republic_ ,
which I think everyone agrees is Plato expounding his own doctrine, without
any real pretense at paraphrasing real events. We also don't have much
evidence for the historicity of _Euthyphro_, but there is a good reason to
think real events went more like it.

Socrates did not teach mathematics or other things where there is (sometimes)
a single obviously right answer. A real-world Socrates would constantly be
blindsided by valid but unexpected points made by his interloculators. Such
nondeterminism is great for genuine dialogue, but not for maintaining an aura
dialectic invincibility. But if he takes a deconstructionst troll strategy, he
can always come out looking clever while honestly repeating that he himself
knows nothing.

~~~
jancsika
> Such nondeterminism is great for genuine dialogue, but not for maintaining
> an aura dialectic invincibility.

We were talking about the character, not the person the character was based
on. That character is clearly not interrupting a topic to do a random walk
through incisive questioning. His questions aren't low-effort questions. So he
isn't a troll in any meaningful sense of the word.

------
agumonkey
Dan Friedman books The little lisper/schemer, The reasoned schemer etc all
follow this kind of questioning dialog.

It's a bit annoying at times, but it really drives the point at the end.

The method should be used more often.

~~~
jimhefferon
When I looked into them, I did not find these books were Socratic/Inquiry-
based. My perception is that a typical question-answer would not be of the
kind I see in such a classroom.

In a classroom I might ask "What should be the precedence among these
arithmetic operators?" Then there would be some discussion, leading eventually
to a sensible answer.

But in the little books (I don't have one to hand so I'm making this up) a
question would be more along the line of "What is a frame?" This would be the
first question in the section introducing the topic. There is no way students
could answer that, or ask it.

That is, what I find compelling about this way of instruction is that it leads
students to the point. It is as if they discovered it themselves, in a way.
(It is sometimes called Discovery method.) They see the wrong stuff as well as
the right and that gives a better understanding of why right is right.

I don't know how Prof Friedman handles it in class. Possibly the in-person
process is quite different than I felt reading the book. But reading the book
I just felt it was a tortured way of telling me the facts.

~~~
Jtsummers
I think a benefit to asking a question a student can't answer yet ("What is an
atom?") is that it gets students accustomed to saying "I don't know". Which
every student (whether young or old) needs to be able to say. By admitting a
lack of knowledge, and not feeling self-conscious about it, the next step is
to fill in the gap. In the Schemer books that's what the next series of
questions (almost?) always seem to do, with a final question ("What is an
atom?"). And now the student can answer it.

A secondary benefit is that, should you already have some basics, you can
often figure out which portions you can skip over by how well your answer
matches the one in the book.

------
kaycebasques
Does anybody have examples of the Socratic method applied to technical
writing?

I write the Chrome DevTools docs, and my big focus is to make the docs as
interactive as possible. For example, in my JS debugging tutorial, I give you
a demo with a bug, and then you actually follow along and use DevTools to
debug the demo. One problem with this, though, is that I'm still just telling
my readers what to do. I'd like to challenge them to figure it out for
themselves. But I need to do it in a structured manner. I don't have the
luxury of seeing their responses in realtime, or being able to alter my
content, like the author did in the classroom.

Link to JS debugging tutorial, if anyone is interested:
[https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-
devtools/java...](https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-
devtools/javascript)

~~~
jventura
> One problem with this, though, is that I'm still just telling my readers
> what to do.

I would advise you to not write tutorials based in questions. But I've read on
the diagonal your JS debugging tutorial, and it seems quite "dry" because you
are really telling the users to "do this, do that, etc.".

I'm a CS teacher, and my approach for my lab classes is to write what I call
"guided tutorials", i.e., I guide my students to the answers (as a sequence of
steps) but I do not give them the answers. It is a kind of middle thing
between something based on questions and a step-by-step tutorial, and it works
very well for me.

I can send you an example that I gave to one of my classes on network sockets,
if you want to check it out (in portuguese though). My email is in my profile.

~~~
kaycebasques
> my approach for my lab classes is to write what I call "guided tutorials"

I think I'm familiar with the approach. One of my favorites is The Elements Of
Computing Systems (nand2tetris.org) which gives you the foundational knowledge
you need for each chapter, and a spec on what you need to build, and gives you
freedom to create it as you see fit.

Presumably, though, since you work in lab classes, you also have the "luxury"
of being able to talk to your students, and detect if they're stuck... just by
watching them. With docs, I don't have that.

When it comes to my docs, my current stance is that it's worse to create
something that's too open-ended than too closed / dry. If it's too open-ended,
readers may get stuck and leave and learn nothing, whereas if it's too closed
/ dry, my readers may be bored, but at least they'll learn something, or at
least have something that they can use when they really need it.

Ultimately it really just boils down to a broken feedback loop. I think open-
ended approaches are the best way to learn, but I need to know when and where
my readers fail, and I need a channel of communication to be able to get them
unstuck. So maybe I just need to build a MOOC community around the open-ended
docs.

~~~
jventura
> When it comes to my docs, my current stance is that it's worse to create
> something that's too open-ended than too closed

I agree with you as my own approach is also more towards the step-by-step.

And you are right that I also have the luxury of my presence being helpful for
when the students get stuck, although I try to make my tutorials so that they
do not need much of my help. Also, some students cannot go to my classes as
they work, and this approach allows them to do the lab assignments at home
without much help from me.

Regarding the broken feedback loop, one possible alternative for web-based
instruction is something that requires the user to insert solutions somewhere
and have feedback on it. There's a SaaS that allows you to do programming
assignments and you must submit it and run it in their servers. Perhaps you
could explore something like that, although with JS you could run it in the
browser directly?

------
twblalock
In many of the Socratic dialogues, the person Socrates is talking to ends up
frustrated and finds some excuse to leave.

They did that because the method is annoying in large doses.

~~~
noncoml
Completely. Reading Plato's Republic I imagine Socrates as a huge troll of his
time.

------
anton_tarasenko
The previous thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9362252](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9362252)

A cached copy:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:v36n9t1...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:v36n9t1rVDsJ:www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk)

Most schools follow Socrates, sort of. Tests and textbook exercises are a
conveyor version of "teaching by asking". Just like grades, they works in a
perverse way until someone patiently explains the child what's the real
purpose of the whole affair.

------
songzme
I run my coding camp to teach adults how to code. Although not entirely
similar to the Socratic method, we focus on asking questions to teach because
it is the most effective and it scales incredibly well (so far).

Here's a glimpse of how our teaching system works, hope it helps someone: 1\.
Each lesson starts with a maximum of 5 definitions and concepts: (What is a
function, how to pass parameters into a function, how to add, etc.) It takes
about 10 minutes to go over these. 2\. The rest of the lesson would be going
one example after another (recursion, callbacks, etc.) 3\. When the lesson is
done (having worked through some examples together), the student will get more
practice problems as well as notes for the lesson (the definition and concepts
and examples we went over) 4\. The student is now responsible for teaching
that lesson for all incoming students.

In our lessons, all interactions are 1-1. Teaching by asking questions scales
really well in 1-1 interactions. This quickly disintegrates in a group setting
though, because everyone draws different analogies and has a different pace of
understanding.

On weekends, our students pair up with engineers to teach engineers what they
learned and also get insight on how engineers ask questions:
[http://bootcamp.garagescript.com/](http://bootcamp.garagescript.com/)

~~~
sigstoat
> Teaching by asking questions scales really well in 1-1 interactions. This
> quickly disintegrates in a group setting though...

in what sense does something that only works 1-1 "scale"?

~~~
songzme
If a person has 3-5 kids, you might think his/her reproduction doesn't scale.
But what if their kids went on to have 3-5 kids, and so on and so forth.
Population grows healthily. IMO, that's scaling with high quality.

The other alternative is: one person learns to reproduce and has 1 million
kids. That person dies, population dies. That doesn't scale.

------
rdtsc
I use this with my kid - she asks me a question and I often ask her the same
question to see what she would think or even guess before I tell her the real
answer. It's a great way to also develop verbal skills as well not just
reasoning I noticed. Gradually through some new words and concepts at her.

But I went to far, now she caught on and is doing the same to me. "Have you
done you homework?", "Maybe, what do you think Daddy?"

------
joshuaheard
I am familiar with the Socratic method from law school, where it is generally
used by the professors. I found it painfully slow, but engaging and
insightful. I think a mix of lecture and Socratic method would be optimal,
where the teacher begins by lecturing the structure of the lesson, then uses
Socratic dialog to hone the fine points.

~~~
dctoedt
Agreed about a mixture being better than pure Socratic method. (Lawyer and
part-time law professor here.) In my own courses I've been experimenting with
1) asking students to read what amounts to a FAQ about the relevant material —
then in class, 2) posing a question orally, often a variation on one of the
FAQs, 3) having the students discuss the oral question in small groups, and
finally 4) calling on a student to report out his group's answer to the oral
question. The students seem to respond well. (Sadly, I have no actual data to
measure comparative pedagogical efficacy.)

------
hnrodey
I really like the Socratic method as it resonates with the way my brain
processes information and I think it's effective to hopefully get people to
think for themselves.

But it's not a silver bullet. I've recognized that there's times you just need
to dictate information and hope the receiver catches it. I find myself needing
information in this form sometimes. Literally just tell me the stuff and I'll
learn it this way.

I've also noticed this pattern with my children. I ask questions to get them
thinking for themselves and hopefully discover their own answer but alas, it
doesn't always work. Maybe they are still too young but I don't really know.
So I then resort to just dictating the information and that works too.

------
easytiger
I'm a collector of antique Natural History and science books.

One of my favorite volumes, of which i have multiple editions, are some books
called "Joyce's Scientific Dialogues". They cover a large variety of areas and
originate in the very early 19thC but were kept updated. In the form of a
teacher in confrontational and productive discussion with the student.

In the 19th C this became a very common mode for educational publications. It
was an ancient form of educational dialogue, modeled and illustrated in the
Ithaca interaction in Ulysses (different Joyce!). It is narrated in the third
person through a set of 309 questions and their detailed answers, in the style
of a catechism (impersonal) or Socratic dialogue.

------
btbuildem
Some of my coworkers tend to keep their heads buried in details so intently, I
find it very difficult to talk to them about the big picture. It is quite
frustrating, as the big picture tends to inform / change the details. We often
end up building things up to the strictest technical standards with the most
appropriate frameworks etc, but hopelessly miss the general requirements.

I've found asking questions to be the most effective approach to help them
"look up". Where lecturing, writing specification documents, or trying to
describe a problem tends to fall on deaf ears - a few carefully worded
questions manage to broaden the focus enough to pull attention away from the
details.

------
yosito
I'm a bit skeptical of saying that the teacher only asked questions and didn't
"tell" the students anything. Many of the questions were prefaced with
statements and many included new information that was worked into the wording
of the question. This was an impressive and well thought out teaching session.
And while it was punctuated with constant questions and answers from the
students, it definitely was not "only" questions.

------
sergj
Saw this on HN a while back. It also uses the socratic method to teach
electronics, but student are supposed to look up the answers to these
questions to deepen their understanding and progress from there.
[http://www.ibiblio.org/kuphaldt/socratic/](http://www.ibiblio.org/kuphaldt/socratic/)

------
pmoriarty
This reminds me of the style of The Little Schemer[1] which a lot of people
love but which I found to be plodding and insufferably condescending.

[1] - [https://www.amazon.com/Little-Schemer-Daniel-P-
Friedman/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/Little-Schemer-Daniel-P-
Friedman/dp/0262560992/)

------
ohdrat
If you're Dad, dumb questions are the only way to get a word in edgewise.

They definitely do not want your input, they don't want your experience, or
any of your thoughts or reflections... but it can be surprisingly effective to
just ask dumb questions.

Isn't official title "facilitator"? :)

------
viraj_shah
Can you use the Socratic method on yourself to develop better ways of
thinking?

~~~
abecedarius
Yes. When you're reading, don't rush ahead to the author's answer; stop and
think whether you can say what it should be. Maybe close the book and go for a
walk. (This didn't come naturally to me, at least for well-written works.)

------
ryanb23
Seems like this should be the standard.

~~~
devmunchies
This was done be a guest teacher. The author was not the classroom teacher.
This means that the students were more curious and interested to begin with.
To maintain this type of rigorous style throughout the year would be almost
impossible. It could be used more, but not exclusively.

~~~
ihaveajob
Precisely this. Please don't read this and apply it to every conversation. If
the other party is not particularly driven to learn about the topic, you'll
turn them off completely.

------
almostarockstar
Slightly off topic, but when a page with minimal styling like this comes by,
how do you typically view it?

I usually do something like this in the inspector:

    
    
      body{
        width: 601px;
        margin: auto;
        font-size: 1.3em;
        color: #483f3f;
        line-height: 1.5em;
      }
    

But that's a pain to write out each time.

I'm not against un-styled websites at all, but I wish they were more readable
by default.

~~~
lgas
You could make a bookmarklet that injects that CSS when you click on it and
then leave it in the bookmarks bar. There used to be a couple of these that
were good, Clear Read and Readable were the two I remember, but they all seem
to have stopped working over time.

~~~
almostarockstar
Will check them out. Thanks.

