Reading this chapter, I noticed aversion to being an annoying conversational parter. But remember that 99.9% of my time using Socratic thinking, elenctic thinking will be on my own thinking
*I also noticed a feeling of “oh man, I won’t be as good at this as Ward, he’s a lawyer”, but → it’s ok to start at the bottom of the Dreyfus skill hierarchy! *
I don’t need to be able to fluently use all 6 of these today/this week/this month. This is a roadmap
6 example “moves”
The possibility space is much more vast than this!
“The examples to follow have to be offered in a spirit of apology, because they show only a modest number of techniques for questioning. The universe of possibilities is large, within the original dialogues and beyond them.”
1. Literalism
2. Extremes
3. Change the politics
4. Change the perspective
(This one seems especially powerful solo)
““These kinds of questions can be productive when examining yourself. In effect they ask for the usual Socratic consistency. But it’s not consistency between two different things you believe. It’s consistency between your answers to the same question when put to you from different points of view. You’re comparing how a problem looks through the eyes of your current self to how it might look to future versions of yourself, to how it might look to others you admire and can imagine as onlookers, to how it might look to your skeptical enemies, or to how it might look if declared publicly, and so forth. If the answers aren’t consistent, they might need adjustment.”