Conduct a genuine Socratic dialogue

Ask questions you do not already have the answer to, and follow wherever the argument leads.

Why it works

Genuine Socratic dialogue differs from debate: the questioner is also in search of truth, not trying to win. This mutual orientation lowers defensiveness and lets both parties revise their views in real time. The "follow the argument" commitment — overriding the need to defend one’s starting position — is the mechanism that makes the method productive rather than adversarial.

How to do it

1. Enter a conversation having identified a question you genuinely don’t know the answer to.
2. Ask only questions; state conclusions only when forced to show your hand for testing.
3. When the argument points somewhere inconvenient, say that out loud and continue anyway.
4. End by summarizing what the conversation revealed — including any revision to your starting view.

Evidence

Collaborative inquiry methods in education (Socratic seminars, philosophy for children) show improvements in reasoning quality, perspective-taking, and willingness to revise beliefs compared to lecture or debate formats. (observational)

Most evidence is from educational settings with children or students; transfer to adult one-on-one dialogue is supported by mechanism but not directly trialed in that context.

Sources

• Trickey, S. & Topping, K.J. (2004), Philosophy for children, Research Papers in Education

Common mistake

Using Socratic questions as rhetorical weapons — asking questions you already know the "right" answer to, to steer toward a predetermined conclusion. This is persuasion dressed as inquiry.