• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Socratic Irony

Gestahl

Muse
G
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
689
So, I have been having "discussions" with several Christians lately (I moved to a new neighborhood, and the local churches are trying to recruit me). I have found that instead of asking direct questions or providing direct claims, it is *much* easier to "play dumb" and ask them leading questions. For example, they bring up homosexuality... you ask why, they give Leviticus as a scripture. Then read the following sections and say "Do I have to follow this rule too?" pointing out a rather absurd one, etc. People seem to be much more receptive when they think you are dumb/ignorant, and they are teaching you, when really you are the one doing the teaching (or trying).

That Socrates was one smart cookie...

Linky for learning here.
 
sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't
- Advocacy of 'Almond Joy' vs 'Mounds' Society
 
I’m sure you’re right that people are less defensive if they think they are teaching you, but I’d worry about making a habit of it. The honesty of feigning ignorance and the consequences of being figured out are problems.

Kind of like the TV-prostitute’s concept of cops… If they ask you directly if you’re a atheist, you have to tell them, and you certainly should never cross the blurry line of entrapment.

Personally, I know I don’t enjoy that form of debate when I’m on the other end of it.
 
I have found that instead of asking direct questions or providing direct claims, it is *much* easier to "play dumb" and ask them leading questions.
Click to expand...
Oh darn!
You prefixed that with a "it's only my experience"-type get out clause. Otherwise it would have been a direct claim.

Drat! :)

Is there any object evidence that your new debating technique is more effective than others? (As opposed to just simply easier)
 
FireGarden said:
Oh darn!
You prefixed that with a "it's only my experience"-type get out clause. Otherwise it would have been a direct claim.

Drat! :)

Is there any object evidence that your new debating technique is more effective than others? (As opposed to just simply easier)
Click to expand...

It certainly results in less heated discussions, they end nicer, and I at least walk away with the satisfaction of knowing maybe they started thinking about something, rather than dismiss my words. I state the truth when I begin, that I was a Christian and no longer consider myself one and do not go to church. *shrug*

I just find that when two people try to get into a conversation, and both are adamant in their stance on something, and if anything is to change, one of them has to make their point without being accusative. See these boards for many examples ;-).

Edit:

Comma splice.
 
[...] if anything is to change, one of them has to make their point without being accusative. See these boards for many examples
Click to expand...
I can probably find some examples that involve myself!

Is "accusatory" a word? (See! I'm a quick learner.) :)
I just read and apply the concepts of smartypants
Click to expand...
A good quote from Socrates/Plato:

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

So you're trying to set alight the seeds of doubt!

Your method is better than being ignored. I'll have to try it some time.



[Edited to take advantage of an opportunity to mix metaphors and to appear less argumentative. Oh the irony!]
 
FireGarden said:
I can probably find some examples that involve myself!

Is "accusatory" a word? (See! I'm a quick learner.) :)
Click to expand...

Yes, but accusative has accusatory as its second def. over at dictionary.com. Accusatory is the better word though... (See! Even if I prove myself correct, I still learn something!).

To muddy the waters, does FG's use of socratic irony in a thread about socratic irony constitute normal irony? Or is it just a neat coincidence? What would make it truly ironic if not?

(Loves threads arguing over irony ;-).
 
does FG's use of socratic irony in a thread about socratic irony constitute normal irony? [...] What would make it truly ironic if not?
Click to expand...
I tried to pretend to be ignorant....
It turned out that I really was ignorant....

....

Man... I'm a really good actor!


The advantage here, however, is that I didn't actually claim that you were wrong. So (in theory) there's less egg on my face.
 
I laughed when I read the FAQs :


:dr:


1. What is Rock, Paper Scissors?

RPS is the world's most popular method decision-making process.


Do you think he'll go for it? :D
 
FireGarden said:

The advantage here, however, is that I didn't actually claim that you were wrong. So (in theory) there's less egg on my face.
Click to expand...

That's the other beauty of this little trick, you never actually call someone wrong, or make any claims. It is really hard to argue against someone when they make no claims ;-).
 
Gestahl,

The problem with that is, one can only reason with the reasonable.

When dealing with someone who is not willing to be reasonable, that person will make accusations of inference regardless of any attempt on your part to avoid doing so.

In other words, it is my opinion that use of Socratic technique works only in a controlled environment where the participants are of similar intellectual caliber. For example, I seriously doubt that Socratic technique would hold its own when dealing with promoters of hate.
 
I've worked out the relevance of RPS.
People who find it hard to make decisions play RPS. But people who find it VERY hard to make decisions, have to follow the gambits of the RPS-masters. http://www.worldrps.com/gambits.html

How do you make decisions?
What would be the point of Socrates merely telling people his opinion? Wouldn't it be better if he illustrated his own decision-making process and allowed his listeners to study that as well as his conclusion? That way, they may not need to ask his opinion on every matter. They could form opinions of their own that were just as reasonable.

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

Don't believe me?

Right!....

One, two, three
[Begins "the Crescendo" Gambit, because none of the given gambits begins with scissors!]
 
Gestahl said:
So, I have been having "discussions" with several Christians lately (I moved to a new neighborhood, and the local churches are trying to recruit me). I have found that instead of asking direct questions or providing direct claims, it is *much* easier to "play dumb" and ask them leading questions. For example, they bring up homosexuality... you ask why, they give Leviticus as a scripture. Then read the following sections and say "Do I have to follow this rule too?" pointing out a rather absurd one, etc. People seem to be much more receptive when they think you are dumb/ignorant, and they are teaching you, when really you are the one doing the teaching (or trying).

That Socrates was one smart cookie...

Linky for learning here.
Click to expand...
playing naive may not always have fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom