THE SOCRATIC METHOD RESEARCH PORTAL

Introduction to the Socratic Method

and its Effect on Critical Thinking

PART I: Introduction to the Socratic Method

The Socratic method is one of the most famous, least used, and least understood teaching and
conversation practices. The Socratic method of questioning is named after the Greek philosopher
Socrates (469 BC–399 BC), who lived in Athens Greece. His father was Sophroniscus, a stone
cutter, and his mother was Phaenarete, a midwife. His mother’s profession of midwife is how
Socrates would later characterize his own profession. Socrates believed that the highest benefit
of his art was to help people do their own thinking in a way that lead to the birth of their own
new ideas. In Socratic dialogues, the primary focus is on the original thinking of the respondent
as they try to answer Socrates' questions. A new idea, once it was delivered through Socrates
philosophical midwife practice of limiting himself to asking questions, was then examined to
determine if the idea is a "false phantom or an instinct with life and truth" (Theaetetus). This
examination involved Socrates asking more questions, which help the respondents think
critically about their previous answers.

The subjects of Socrates' conversations often revolved around defining ideas such as, justice,
virtue, beauty, courage, temperance, and friendship. The search for a definition focused on the
true nature of the subject under question and not just on how the word is used correctly in a
sentence. Socrates style of conversation involved his own denial of knowledge (Socratic
irony). In these conversations, Socrates became the student and made those he questioned the
teacher. Socrates rejected any attempts to pass off another person's ideas or the beliefs of the
majority as truth. Socrates was not interested in the talk of others. He only wanted to focus on the
respondents own thinking. Through the respondent's process of answering Socrates' questions,
they experienced their own original thinking in the context of examining their own ideas and
themselves. The brilliance of the Socratic method is in the character developing power it has
through the exercise of a person's love of asking and answering questions in the pursuit of
knowledge.

The Socratic method, with its focus on a person's original and critical thinking in the context of
life's important questions, is foundational to human moral development. Vlastos and Graham
offer an important insight into the value of the Socratic method:

"Why rank that method among the great achievements of humanity? Because it makes moral
inquiry a common human enterprise, open to everyone. Its practice calls for no adherence to a
philosophical system, or mastery of a specialized technique, or acquisition of a technical
vocabulary. It calls for common sense and common speech. And this is as it should be, for how a
human being should live is everyone's business."
Socratic Method Definitions:

What is the Socratic method? A single, consistent definition of the Socratic method is not
possible due to the diversity with which 'the method' has been used in history. There are many
styles of question oriented dialogue that claim the name Socratic method. However, just asking a
lot of questions does not automatically constitute a use of the Socratic method. Even in the
dialogues of Plato, which are the most significant and detailed historical references to Socrates,
there is not just one Socratic method. The exact style and methodology of the Platonic Socrates
changes significantly throughout the dialogues. If there is a 'classic' Socratic method, this
designation must refer to the style of the Socratic method found primarily in the early dialogues
(also called the ‘Socratic Dialogues’) and some other dialogues of Plato. In these dialogues,
Socrates claims to have no knowledge of even the most fundamental principles, such as justice,
holiness, friendship or virtue. In the Socratic dialogues, Socrates only wants short answers that
address very specific points and refuses to move on to more advanced or complicated topics until
an adequate understanding of basic principles is achieved. This means that the conversation is
often stuck in the attempt to answer what appears to be an unanswerable basic question. This
image of Socrates' conversations, with their typical failure to find an answer, is the most widely
recognized portrait of Socrates and his method. In the dialogues of Plato, the portrayal of
Socrates and his method were diverse and ranged from the portrait of Socrates in the early
dialogues to a richer diversity of conversational styles and ideas in latter dialogues. This
diversity in the dialogues was so great that Plato even decided to drop both Socrates and his
method in some of his writing. In a later Platonic dialogue ‘The Laws’, there is still conversation
but Socrates is replaced with ‘the stranger’ and his method is gone as well. Socrates and his
method are most vividly seen in the early and middle dialogues.

A Definition of the Classic Socratic Method:

The Classic Socratic method uses creative questioning to dismantle and discard preexisting ideas
and thereby allows the respondent to rethink the primary question under discussion (such as
'What is virtue?'). This deconstructive style of the Socratic method is ‘Socratic’ precisely to the
extent that the weight of the actual deconstruction of a definition rests in the respondent’s own
answers to more questions, which refute the respondent's previously stated answer to the primary
question. The result of the Classic Socratic method is, by definition, a failure to find a
satisfactory answer to the primary question in a conversation. This failure produces a realization
of ignorance in the respondent (Socratic Effect) which can, it is hoped, inspire the respondent to
dig deep and think about the question with a new freedom that is obtained from discarding a
previously held belief. If a satisfactory answer is found, this represents a transition to the
‘Modern Socratic method.’

The ultimate goal of the Socratic method is to increase understanding through inquiry. Obtaining
an enhanced freedom to think through discarding preexisting bad ideas is the penultimate goal of
the classic style of the Socratic method. The only person who cannot think is the one who thinks
she already knows. Through the deconstruction of existing ideas, the classic style of the Socratic
method frees people to think about basic principles and ideas with an enhanced sense of
necessity and clarity. In this style of the Socratic method, for example, there is no point in getting
deeply into complicated theories of particular applications of justice in society until one can
answer a much simpler question like, “What is justice?” In this case, the Classic Socratic method
functions to tear down existing ideas of justice. This works by exposing unknown or
unacknowledged ambiguity and complexity, which makes the respondent realize she has more
thinking to do. The ‘Socratic Effect’ provides the respondent with the opportunity to rethink
justice, or whatever other quality or idea is in focus, after having their previously existing ideas
discarded with their full agreement on the basis of their own answers to questions. This classic
style of the Socratic method is described in detail below and is referred to as the ‘Two-Phase
Freestyle.' The classic style of the Socratic method is notoriously difficult to achieve in real
conversation. It is impossible to not notice that Plato had the benefit of being able to write the
answers as well as the questions. The full dynamics of how Socrates was able to handle the wide
diversity of possible responses to his questions is lost to history. The high level of difficulty in
using the Classic Socratic method explains why this style is almost never used. This difficulty of
usage gave rise to the popularity of what I call the ‘Modern Socratic method.’

A Definition of the Modern Socratic Method:

The Modern Socratic method is a process of questioning used to successfully lead a person to
knowledge through small steps. This knowledge can be specific data, training in approaches to
problem solving, or leading one to embrace a specific belief. The type of knowledge is not as
important as the fact that, with the Modern Socratic method, the knowledge gained is specifically
anticipated by the Socratic questioner. This stands in contrast to the Classic Socratic method in
which the actual outcomes are unknown by all parties.

The modern style is not deconstructive, but constructive. This is the most widely used style today
because it is the easiest to employ. It is much easier to lead a person, by baby steps, to specific
knowledge through a series of questions than it is to force a person to abandon a cherished idea
and rethink an important or controversial issue just by asking creative questions. The Modern
Socratic method is not called modern because it was invented recently, but because it is the most
popular usage in modern times. The Modern Socratic method has historical precedent in the
dialogues of Plato. The most famous example is the geometry experiment with the slave boy in a
dialogue called Meno. The Modern Socratic method is discussed below and is referred to as 'The
Constructive Agenda' style of the Socratic method.

The "Socratic Method" in Law School

Although there is nothing genuinely Socratic about the violently contentious law school version
of the method, the fact that a law student’s exposure to this very intense type of questioning will
often break her down and force her to dig deep and perform better does have something of the
flavor of the Classic Socratic Method. The purpose of this style of questioning in law school is to
prepare students for the extremely rough environment of courtroom litigation. Even though the
law school form has the flavor of the deconstructive nature of the Classic Socratic Method (see
"The Deconstructive Phase" below), the actual structure of Socratic Dialogue and the nurturing
gentleness, which was characteristic of Socrates and his method, are absent..
Two Styles of the Socratic Method

In spite of their differences, both styles of the Socratic method have some common aspects. Both
can inspire people to increase their love of good questions. Both can draw people into a more
thoughtful mode of thinking. The Modern Socratic method can be used to good effect for leading
a person to work out their own understanding of static knowledge such as mathematics. The
Classic Socratic method is a profoundly useful tool to facilitate improvements in critical thinking
and to elevate the quality of human discourse regarding difficult and controversial issues. A
contemporary example of the Classic Socratic method is the dialogue, The Moral Bankruptcy of
Faith, where the Classic Socratic method is used to demonstrate the necessity of caution when
making overly broad statements about morality. The more difficult, ambiguous or controversial
the issue, the more powerful the usefulness of the Classic Socratic method will be in our
conversations. This is because the need to think critically increases with the complexity and
ambiguity of the issue or problem under discussion. Although some commonly shared level of
problem solving and evaluative ability, which sometimes passes for critical thinking is used in
our daily lives, the full and rich depth of the human capacity to think critically is much greater
than ordinarily realized. Many people's ability to think with some measure of critical quality
serves them fine in solving some practical problems. If, however, a problem has complex ethical
dimensions or otherwise ambiguous qualities, the average ability to think critically is often not
adequate. This inadequacy is especially evident when we are required to think critically about
our own cherished beliefs and ideas. Although the Classic Socratic method is superior with
regard to its impact on developing critical thinking, the Modern Socratic method has a valuable
influence on the development of critical thinking to the extent that it makes people comfortable
questioning their own ideas. The good news about the Socratic method is that some of its most
powerful benefits are delivered to people in a way that does not require great philosophical
prowess or teaching skill (Modern Socratic method). A cup of open mindedness, a pinch of
humble servility and a passion to explore makes up most of the recipe for putting the Modern
Socratic method to productive use. However, the most powerful aspect of the Socratic method
(the classic style) is very difficult to employ. Both styles of the Socratic method are described
below.

The Classic Socratic Method:

The Two-Phase Freestyle

There are two phases in the Classic Socratic method. I refer to the Classic Socratic method as a
Two-Phase Freestyle form of dialectic. The Modern Socratic method is often constrained to a
pre-designed set of questions that are known to generate a range of predictable answers and elicit
knowable facts. The Classic Socratic method is freestyle because, due to the nature of the
questions, it cannot predict the responses to questions, anticipate the flow of the conversation or
even know if a satisfactory answer is possible. The main portrait of how Socrates functioned in
the classic style is in the early Dialogues of Plato (and some later dialogues). Plato wrote in the
form of dialogues. In these dialogues Socrates would talk to people that had a reputation for
having some knowledge of, or some interest in, the subject of the dialogue. In the classic style,
Socrates would ask the primary question of the dialogue in the form of “What is X?”. (e.g. What
is justice?) The respondents would answer. Socrates would then ask more questions and the
respondent’s answers would end up refuting the definition to the question "What is X?", which
they had originally given. Once the respondent realized that the definition was not valid she
would be asked again, “What is X?”. This process would often repeat until the end of the
dialogue. With each new definition the respondent is subjected to more questions and continues
to fail to define X. The conclusion of the dialogue would be an admission of failure to find a
proper definition of X. Apparently this Socratic questioning had quite an effect on the
respondents.

In the Socratic dialogue called Meno, Socrates is asked by Meno if he believes that virtue can be
taught. Meno was shocked and could scarcely believe it when Socrates tells him that he not only
does not know if virtue can be taught, but does not understand the nature of virtue. Furthermore,
Socrates tells Meno that he never knew anyone else who had an understanding of virtue. Meno’s
reluctance to believe Socrates never knew anyone who understood what virtue is was based on
his belief that any grown and properly educated man would have some knowledge of
virtue. Meno believed that he understood the nature of virtue. Meno is then exposed to Socratic
questioning. Plato gives us a description of the effect this questioning had on Meno when Meno
tells Socrates,

“O Socrates, I used to be told, before I knew you, that you were always doubting yourself and
making others doubt; and now you are casting your spells over me, and I am simply getting
bewitched and enchanted, and am at my wits' end. And if I may venture to make a jest upon you,
you seem to me both in your appearance and in your power over others to be very like the flat
torpedo fish, who torpifies (makes numb) those who come near him and touch him, as you have
now torpified me, I think. For my soul and my tongue are really torpid, and I do not know how to
answer you; and though I have been delivered of an infinite variety of speeches about virtue
before now, and to many persons-and very good ones they were, as I thought. At this moment I
cannot even say what virtue is. And I think that you are very wise in not voyaging and going
away from home, for if you did in other places as do in Athens, you would be cast into prison as
a magician.” - from Meno

Meno had been moved from a sense of security over his knowledge about virtue to the
uncomfortable realization that he cannot even define virtue. With Meno’s words above we see
the effect of the Classic Socratic method. This effect has two main possibilities. Either a person
will be inspired to better and more vigorous thinking about a question or they will get
discouraged by having their perspective challenged.

The Deconstructive Phase

The purpose of the first phase of the Classic Socratic method is that it prepares people to
think. The only people who are incapable of thinking about an issue are those who are already
convinced they have “the” understanding of an issue. There are no “Socratic teachings”, but
there is a Socratic goal. The goal inherent in any method of questioning worthy of the name
“Socratic” is the improvement of a human being through increased understanding. The first
phase of the Classic Socratic method deconstructs people’s previous understanding using their
own words and leaves them with the experience of being less sure of what they previously knew
with greater certainty. This is its value.
Convictions, when held too tightly, blind us in a way that traps us within our own
opinions. Although this protects us from uncomfortable ambiguities and troublesome
contradictions, it also makes us comfortable with stagnation and blocks the path to improved
understanding. In other words, without the capacity to question ourselves the possibility of real
thinking ceases. If people are not able to question their own ideas they cannot be thoughtful at
all. When unacknowledged or unquestioned assumptions dominate the mind, thoughtfulness
becomes a danger and the human aspiration to improve and grow in understanding becomes a
slave to fear. The goal of the Classic Socratic method is to help people by freeing their desire for
understanding from the harmful limitations that come through clinging to the false securities of
their current knowing. People who experience the effect, which arises from being a recipie’nt of
the first phase of the Socratic method are freed from the shackles of confidence in their
knowing. This affords them the optional freedom of thinking about an issue with a greater
quality of thoughtfulness. Reactions to this effect can be diverse. They range from embracing the
experience with zeal to seeking to remove oneself from the situation.

When stripped of their usual surety, a person may become sensitive and anxious. The advantage
of the Classic Socratic method over the more common forms of discussion or debate is that the
Socratic questioner may abandon the burdensome pretense of knowing and take the more
subordinate and conversationally effective role as a seeker of understanding. This has the effect
of flying under the defensive radar, particularly on controversial issues, and provides a measure
of comfort that can move the conversation to a more productive level. Instead of trading contrary
propositions and defending mutually exclusive arguments, the Classic Socratic method functions
by keeping the conversation focused on common goals that are shared by both sides. Instead of
being an opponent, the person being questioned becomes a teacher and helper.

A function of Socratic irony in the context of the first phase is to increase the level of
psychological comfort while at the same time placing all the burden for finding answers upon the
respondent. This ensures that communication is more effective and helps a person’s aspiration to
increase their understanding to have the best chance of responding positively to the conversation.
This is critical as the deconstructive phase can be distressing.

This Socratic gadfly was put to death because his habit of questioning things seemed out of
character with Athens. He favored reasoned examination over quoting poets. Athenian literary
history, and the God's that inhabited it were sacred. Socrates had another idea of what had value
in determining how best to live. He was relentless questioning everything pertaining to the
justice and virtue of human character. Some of Socrates' young conversation partners, who had
ambitions in politics, would go home to their powerful families and to other prominent persons
and ply this method to tearing down existing beliefs with much less servility and grace than
Socrates. It seemed to some of the people of Athens that the effect of Socrates' questioning was
to make the young question things in a manner that they should not. When some of Socrates'
students became part of a ruthless group of tyrant's, who riegned under a Spartan imposed
election and viciously abused their power, this added to the percieved fruit of Socrates'
corruption of the youth. Socrates ability to remain in Athens during the Thirty Tyrant's rule did
not help at his trial. Socrates was seen to have been one who denied the sacred traditions of the
city state and passed that corruption to the youth. Having been sentenced to death, Socrates had
the opportunity to escape prison and live in exile but refused. He spent his last month in prison
the same way he spent his life as a free man. He explored life questioning those around him. On
his last day he drank the deadly hemlock because his fellow Athenians believed he was a failure
as a teacher. At the time of his death, he was looked at by many Athenians as a man who made
his students worse instead of improving them. In the face of such spectacular failures as Critias,
Alcibiades and Charmides, Socrates never thought less of his style of seeking and teaching. He
valued it until the end. Seeking understanding and using questions in that pursuit have more
worth than any failures can ever do to discredit. If Socrates' student/tyrants had ever learned to
really question themselves, they might have lived differently. If Socrates had not demonstrated
such a gentle, graceful and sincerely helpful manner in his questioning activities, he probably
would not have lived as long as he did.

One of the most “Socratic” aspects of Socrates’ method has nothing to do with conversational
techniques, philosophical principles, or pedagogical perspectives. It is all about a genuine
attitude of humility and service towards the person being questioned. This Socratic irony, with its
characteristic humble grace, goes a long way to giving people the interest, determination and
patience to endure what can be trying experience. Without true Socratic irony, the deconstructive
phase becomes an exercise in shallow manipulation that lacks the power to inspire.

The Constructive Phase

When a person who has been exposed to Socratic questioning admits to themselves that an idea
they held was wrong or inadequate in some way, that person is freed from the constraints of
previous understanding and has been brought to a place within themselves which brings to life
new ideas and understandings. This bringing to birth of new ideas is the constructive second
phase of the two-phase freestyle of the Classic Socratic method. Here the respondent, stripped of
previous ideas and convictions, brings to birth new ones. It is this bringing to birth of new ideas
and understandings that Socrates related to his mother’s profession as a midwife. Socrates assists
in this birth by clearing away ideas that cannot stand up to questioning. This allows the
respondent to do their own work in the second phase through her creation of new ideas.

The Cyclic Structure of Phases

There is a division of labor in the Classic Socratic method between the Socratic questioner and
the respondent. This division of labor can be described within the framework of the two phases.
The first phase (deconstructive) is primarily the work of the Socratic questioner. The second
phase (constructive) is entirely the work of the respondent. An illustration of the relationship
between these two phases and the labor they involve can be seen in Socrates’ description of his
work from the dialogue Theaetetus:

“...the highest point of my art is the power to prove by every test whether the offspring of a
young man's thought is a false phantom or an instinct with life and truth. I am so far like the
midwife, that I cannot myself give birth to wisdom; and the common reproach is true that,
though I question others, I can myself bring nothing to light because there is no wisdom in me.
The reason is this: heaven constrains me to serve as a midwife, but has debarred me from giving
birth. So of myself I have no sort of wisdom, nor has any discovery ever been born to me as the
child of my soul. Those who frequent my company at first appear, some of them, quite
unintelligent; but, as we go further with our discussions, all who are favored by heaven make
progress at a rate that seems surprising to others as well as to themselves, although it is clear that
they have never learned anything from me; the many admirable truths they bring to birth have
been discovered by themselves from within. But the delivery is heaven's work and mine.”

From this description it can be seen that the Platonic Socrates viewed his work as taking place in
the deconstructive first phase. As Socrates says in the Theaetetus, “the many admirable truths
they (the respondents) bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within. But the
delivery is heaven's work and mine.” Socrates role is to “test whether the offspring of a young
man’s thought is a false phantom or instinct with life and truth.” This testing is the
deconstructive first phase where ideas that do not stand up to testing are discarded. The
respondent takes command in the constructive second phase. The second phase involves a birth
of ideas that the respondents discover “by themselves from within.” Here in the constructive
second phase Socrates usually does not assist at all. The respondents are entirely responsible for
their own creation. In the deconstructive first phase, Socrates tests a definition or idea with the
help of the respondent and the definition or idea collapses. After the collapse we enter the
constructive second phase where the respondent creates a new definition or idea all on her
own. Upon this act of second phase creation we enter again into the deconstructive first phase
and Socrates tests again if this new idea is, "a false phantom or an instinct with life and truth."
Grouping the Classic Socratic method into two phases is defined by this process of creation and
destruction. The cycle can take place any number of times during an application of the Socratic
method. The goal is to seek ideas and definitions that will stand up to testing and show
themselves to be full of “life and truth.” The Classic Socratic method, as described by the two
phases is characteristic in the early dialogues of Plato (and some later dialogues).

The Modern Socratic Method:

The Constructive Agenda

When people speak today of using the Socratic method in conversation, it is almost always the
Modern Socratic method of which they speak. I call this style the Constructive Agenda. This
second style of the Socratic method is also found in Plato. In the Meno dialogue, for example,
the first part of the dialogue is an illustration of the Two-Phase Freestyle of the Classic Socratic
method. Then in response to Meno’s claim that one cannot ever inquire into anything (known as
Meno’s paradox), Socrates is made to introduce Plato’s idea of knowledge as recollection. This
theory is illustrated by a dialogue with a one of Meno’s slaves. The subject is a geometry
question. There are still wrong answers and clarifying questions but the clear Two-Phase cycle is
gone. In its place is a constant progression of knowledge in which the slave is lead to correct
answers that build upon each other until the original question is correctly answered. This
constant progression of knowledge is also part of the character of Plato’s Republic (after the
initial focus on justice). In the Republic the task is not just to answer a geometry question, but to
build the ideal city state. Achieving such a lofty goal is beyond the capabilities of endless cycles
of not being able to answer a single question. The progress of knowledge in the Republic,
however, is not dependent on the classic style of the Socratic method. After book one, Plato
changes Socrates' style in order to advance his agenda. Plato believed that what Socrates' did best
was not suitable to advance knowledge in a way that Plato thought was necessary. In this style of
the Socratic method, the Socratic questioner adopts his/her own constructive age and sets out to
bring that agenda to life in the minds of the respondents.

Differences Between The Classic

and the Modern Socratic Method

With the Classic Socratic method there is no guarantee of a correct answer. The typical result in
Socratic dialogue employing the classic style is to not find an answer to the main question. At
that point the benefit of the Classic Socratic method is to help the respondent to, in true Socratic
fashion, know what they do not know. This becomes the whole value of the Classic Socratic
method in the absence of viable answers. In the Modern Socratic method, a correct answer can
be known by the Socratic questioner. The Classic Socratic method places the Socratic questioner
in the position of being totally ignorant, and by necessity a student of the respondent. The
Modern Socratic method puts the Socratic questioner in the position of a teacher who knows the
answer (as in the case of the geometry experiment) or at least has a constructive agenda of
his/her own (as in Plato’s Republic). It is an open question whether the historical Socrates went
beyond the Two-Phase cycles found in Plato’s early (and some other) dialogues. Most scholars
believe that the early dialogues, which emphasize the Two-Phase Freestyle are more in the spirit
of the historical Socrates than later dialogues. The Constructive Agenda of the Modern Socratic
method, first seen in the dialogues of Plato, may be Plato’s idea of improving on Socrates. The
Two-Phase Freestyle of the Classic Socratic method is characteristic of the early dialogues, and
is less fruitful by most practical constructive standards. There is often no positive acquisition of
knowledge except the knowledge of what we do not know. To some, this seems to be a very
sparse reward. It is also very difficult to make Socrates’ deconstructive phase work in live
conversation. That most modern applications of the Socratic method are oriented around the
Constructive Agenda may be explained by the difficulties involved in successfully making the
Two-Phase Freestyle work. If a systematic way of teaching people to work the deconstructive
phase of the Classic Socratic method in live conversation can be created, it would be a useful
tool for inquiry and teaching.

PART II
The Socratic Cultivation of Critical Thinking

Never in the history of humanity has it been more important to the survival of our species to raise
whole generations of excellent thinkers than it is today. A dreamy ideal of modern education is
that college graduates will not only have gained some mastery in the particular disciplines they
have chosen, but also graduate with advanced skill in critical thinking. Unfortunately, there are a
large number of college students for whom the idea of thinking critically is new to them upon
their arrival to college.

Critical thinking should be actively cultivated throughout public school in order for college
students to have the base they need to advance their skill. However, critical thinking is a skill
that is neglected in our (U.S.) public schools. This is not because of a lack of perceived value,
but is neglected because of the lack of ability to adequately teach the fundamentals of reading,
writing and math to the students. Nobody can deny that the U.S. school system is broken. So
many kids finish their time in the public school system with inadequate knowledge and skills that
it is a national emergency. The U.S. government variously estimates the rate of functional
illiteracy at between twenty-five and fifty percent. The problem is getting worse.

There are some bad teachers in our schools. But there are a lot more hardworking, dedicated
teachers who are just overwhelmed with the important job of trying to get their students to
acquire the basic skills they will need just to get by in the world. There is little or no time in the
public school curriculum to include much in the way of activities dedicated to the cultivation of
critical thinking. This is not just the fault of the public school system. The bulk of the problem is
social. In the U.S. too many parents believe that the public school system will do the educating
for them. If such parents participate in their child’s education at all, they are content to drop the
kids off at school and ask if they did their home work at night. Then they think they are
done. Many children also face horrendous social problems that tax their ability to focus on
school. Between parental complacency and other factors of social chaos, which impact the
students’ homes, neighborhoods and schools, many students do not have the support they need to
do well in our under funded and understaffed school systems. What has been described above is
extremely important, but we cannot afford to wait until those problems are fixed to address the
issue of cultivating critical thinking. The beauty of the Socratic method is that you can
incorporate it into existing curriculum without necessarily taking any more class time. Critical
thinking can be elevated in the process of employing the existing structures of education.

The Socratic method primarily address aspects of the development of skill in critical thinking
that do not come from learning types of logical fallacies or the heuristics for evaluating
arguments and solving problems. It comes from a socially communicated inspiration to thirst for
understanding and to experience the hard work involved in creating understanding as a joyful
and satisfying journey.

Areas of Impact

The Socratic cultivation of critical thinking has two main areas of impact. I have named these
areas “The Safety Factor” and “The Preference Factor.” Both areas affect people’s psychological
health with regard to their capacity to do their own critical thinking.

The Safety Factor

The safety factor is about how well a person is able to cope with interpersonal conflict, social
marginalization, physical danger and death. The safety factor influences the quality of our
critical thinking through the dynamics of our desires for social and physical self-
preservation. Belief structures are formed and maintained as a response to the demands of our
environment. To critically challenge such structures is to risk compromising our ability to meet
the demands of our environment and therefore compromise our safety. A basic value that the
Socratic method brings to people is to make it possible for them to feel confident about the
experience of questioning anything including their own ideas and beliefs. You cannot develop a
capacity for critical thinking without a capacity to question anything and everything. People who
are afraid to question often don’t. Such persons never develop any real skill in thinking critically
until they first overcome their fear of questioning. Ironically, for a species that prides itself on
thinking, even the best of our human societies are not optimally organized to cultivate fearless
questioning. In many countries people regularly suffer all kinds of retributions and even death
just because they asked questions. We have real reasons to be concerned about the results of our
own questioning activity. The inducement to fear our ability to inquire comes from many
places. Family, peers, schools, churches, societies, corporations and governments all have vested
interests in making us believe that we should be careful about our questioning activity.

The social and political suppression of the act of critical inquiry is not restricted to nations ruled
by dictators. Many people who have persisted in asking critical questions about the existence of
God, the integrity of their government, sexual identity, current laws on abortion, a friend's
motivation, evolution or a company policy have been treated like they were doing something
wrong just because they wanted to question something.

People have felt the pressure to stop an inquiry because they questioned the competence,
integrity and value of a national leader, popular figure, institution, or perspective. People, who
question the existence of God, are considered by many as being morally corrupt and even treated
like criminals in many parts of the world. Religious persons have the experience of questioning
the morality of something from a religion based perspective and have felt the pressure from the
non-religious to stop. The institutional self-interests of school and the workplace pressure people
to conform. Parents can make their children feel as if they have done something wrong if the
parent is overreacting to thinking the child is asking too many questions or to the child
questioning something the parent does not wish to address. Far from being taught to cherish
every opportunity to question and far from being led to embrace the experience of questioning
with joyful insight into its inherent good, many of us are taught to be very careful and even
suspicious about our own desire to question. This over abundance of caution reduces the
intelligence of humanity.

The Preference Factor

The preference factor involves the effect of our own presuppositions, attachments and personal
commitments. The preference factor influences our critical thinking capacity through the
interactions of our preferences, personal beliefs and our pre-existing commitments to taking a
particular side in various issues or social conflicts. Critical thinking is not a skill that is evenly
applied to all things. A person can be very critically thoughtful on some issues and lacking in
critical thoughtfulness in other issues. The measure of a person's critical thoughtfulness is often
correlated to her own personal investments in the issue. For example a person may be very
critically thoughtful on issues pertaining to judicial ethics, but lack any critical capacity on the
issue of the existence of God because they are already committed to a particular answer for the
God question. One can develop extraordinary capacity to engage in critical thinking and yet find
that their own preferences in various issues can make the quality of their critical thinking vary
tremendously. The two factors overlap but are different. The safety factor is about pressures from
without. The preference factor is about pressures from within.

Socratic Questioning and Critical Thinking

It is very important to find your own love of questioning prior to using the Socratic method. If
you are not comfortable with being questioned, please do not use the Socratic method. You are
not ready. Not only will your lack of comfort transmit to the students (even if you are the
questioner), you will not be up to par on living true Socratic Irony (See the essay, "The Socratic
Temperament"). This is important because the Socratic method addresses both factors by
providing people with the opportunity for positive questioning experiences. When people are
placed in a situation where they are questioned in a way that is friendly, respectful and useful,
people are empowered to experience the value of good questions. They are inspired to see
questioning as a fundamentally important part of life. This is particularly true if a person can
experience having a personal belief or idea refuted in a positive way. In the midst of Socratic
questioning people can learn to feel good about getting one of their beliefs or ideas questioned
and discarded. This is true because the successful application of the Socratic method provides
people with the realization that if they work hard they can either create a better belief or idea, or
they can in true Socratic fashion feel good about knowing what they do not know. We all have
experiences which make us cautious and fearful about questioning. Through the use of the
Socratic method we can offer a balancing positive experience of the act of asking questions. This
can inspire people to eagerly embrace the heart of critical thinking, which is the freedom and will
to question without fear of any kind. Such an embrace can only strengthen their capacity for
critical thought.

Learning to love the experience of questioning gives psychological strength to our will to
question. Learning to love the experience of having our own beliefs and ideas questioned and
even discarded gives us an inspired vision of our power to work for our own improvement. If we
see questioning as a sacred activity that is vital to our own safety (by safeguarding our integrity
and growth), we are less afraid to question the world. If we develop a preference for questioning
our own preferences we find a true Socratic spirit within ourselves that will empower our critical
thinking for life. The successful use of the Socratic method gifts those who experience it with the
living heart of critical thinking.