With all due respect, that does not look like the Socratic Method to me.
If I am reading it right, you came out of the gate with an insult with, "You guys seem to get a lot of stuff incorrect."
Socrates would have never done that. The Socratic Method is to first agree, and then ask questions to drill down to their core beliefs.
When 2 (or more) people disagree on a topic, it usually is not that topic where they disagree. It is ususally in their unstated premises -- things they fundamentally believe in, but do not specifically state. We all have these premises, and we use those to arrive at conclusions.
Premise: Some fruits are apples.
Premise: Some apples are red.
Conclusion: Some fruits are red.
Premise: All A's are also B's.
Premise: All B's are also C's.
Conclusion: All A's are also C's.
Premise: All apples are fruits.
Premise: All apples are red. <--- false premise
Conclusion: All fruits are red. <--- false conclusion
Socrates would drill down past the surface topic (the conclusion) and find out what the person's premises were, which always had some sort of flaw, and once he focused on that, the people would get horribly irate.
If you want to see this in action, with politicians, check out some of Jan Helfeld's interviews on YouTube. He has interviewed Pelosi, Biden, and many others. Most of them get angry. One guy threatened to throw him out a window.
Helfeld asked Pelosi about minimum wage. Of course, she said she supported minimum wage laws and they should be higher amounts. Then, he asked her about her interns. She told him about the interns. He asked her if the interns get paid minimum wage or more. Of course, they don't get paid anything or if they do it is less than minimum wage.
So then, he said, "Well, you just said you believe in minimum wage, but you don't pay your interns minimum wage." That's when she got PISSED!
You see, he did not disagree with her. He simply pointed out her own hypocracy, and that is what made her angry. She could not reconcile two conflicting ideas, even though they were both her own ideas. So, she got angry at the person asking the questions.
It is designed to make people think, but even more to point out their own flaws in thinking.
Most people do not think about WHY they believe in something. They have accepted premises without critical thought, and then arrived at conclusions based on it.
We see it with the maked people every day. They believe in the premise "masks will keep you and/or others safe from viruses" and they conclude they should wear a mask and you should, too. But their premise is false, which means their conclusion may also be false (technically, it is not a "false conclusion," but an "unsound argument" which might be false -- in this case, it is).
Here is that interview -- notice that Helfeld never disagrees with Pelosi. He never says she is wrong. He just asks her to explain her position, and she works herself in a pretzel trying to justify her own hypocracy:
Daniel Inoyue, senator from Hawaii, shows the mind of a true psychopath, proving he has no idea what the Constitution says or the proper role of government:
In all of these, Helfeld demonstrates the Socratic Method. People who are really interested in learning things will often have an "ahah!" moment when this method is directed at them. People who refuse to learn anything new will have a meltdown when their premises (that they might not even understand) are challenged by their own ideas.
This was an outstanding explanation on Socratic Method, Fren. Highly impressed, as you hit every hot button down the list required to hit. Well done....well done indeed.
With all due respect, that does not look like the Socratic Method to me.
If I am reading it right, you came out of the gate with an insult with, "You guys seem to get a lot of stuff incorrect."
Socrates would have never done that. The Socratic Method is to first agree, and then ask questions to drill down to their core beliefs.
When 2 (or more) people disagree on a topic, it usually is not that topic where they disagree. It is ususally in their unstated premises -- things they fundamentally believe in, but do not specifically state. We all have these premises, and we use those to arrive at conclusions.
Premise: Some fruits are apples.
Premise: Some apples are red.
Conclusion: Some fruits are red.
Premise: All A's are also B's.
Premise: All B's are also C's.
Conclusion: All A's are also C's.
Premise: All apples are fruits.
Premise: All apples are red. <--- false premise
Conclusion: All fruits are red. <--- false conclusion
Socrates would drill down past the surface topic (the conclusion) and find out what the person's premises were, which always had some sort of flaw, and once he focused on that, the people would get horribly irate.
If you want to see this in action, with politicians, check out some of Jan Helfeld's interviews on YouTube. He has interviewed Pelosi, Biden, and many others. Most of them get angry. One guy threatened to throw him out a window.
Helfeld asked Pelosi about minimum wage. Of course, she said she supported minimum wage laws and they should be higher amounts. Then, he asked her about her interns. She told him about the interns. He asked her if the interns get paid minimum wage or more. Of course, they don't get paid anything or if they do it is less than minimum wage.
So then, he said, "Well, you just said you believe in minimum wage, but you don't pay your interns minimum wage." That's when she got PISSED!
You see, he did not disagree with her. He simply pointed out her own hypocracy, and that is what made her angry. She could not reconcile two conflicting ideas, even though they were both her own ideas. So, she got angry at the person asking the questions.
It is designed to make people think, but even more to point out their own flaws in thinking.
Most people do not think about WHY they believe in something. They have accepted premises without critical thought, and then arrived at conclusions based on it.
We see it with the maked people every day. They believe in the premise "masks will keep you and/or others safe from viruses" and they conclude they should wear a mask and you should, too. But their premise is false, which means their conclusion may also be false (technically, it is not a "false conclusion," but an "unsound argument" which might be false -- in this case, it is).
Here is that interview -- notice that Helfeld never disagrees with Pelosi. He never says she is wrong. He just asks her to explain her position, and she works herself in a pretzel trying to justify her own hypocracy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pFC3LKMIQo
George Stephanopolos's hypcracy on race issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdkf2ySoFc8
Pete Stark wants to throw him out the window when he can't justify his viewpoints:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0
Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico, proves to be one of the stupidest humans on Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAY_hHGKL4M
Daniel Inoyue, senator from Hawaii, shows the mind of a true psychopath, proving he has no idea what the Constitution says or the proper role of government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZxrYEuY-Pw
Surprisingly, Joe Biden was one of the smartest politicians he ever interviewed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HcJJE2Sp28
In all of these, Helfeld demonstrates the Socratic Method. People who are really interested in learning things will often have an "ahah!" moment when this method is directed at them. People who refuse to learn anything new will have a meltdown when their premises (that they might not even understand) are challenged by their own ideas.
This was an outstanding explanation on Socratic Method, Fren. Highly impressed, as you hit every hot button down the list required to hit. Well done....well done indeed.