Starting the Conversation, Socratic Style
Sept 12, 2022 15:14:29 GMT
prnolonger, dandelionwine, and 12 more like this
Post by throwaway2018 on Sept 12, 2022 15:14:29 GMT
I said in a recent post that if you really want to convince someone that an external investigation is necessary that you should do some research into Socratic questioning. I thought it might be useful to some of you to provide an example script for how to use Socratic questioning to explore someone's views. If any of you here are Socratic questioning nerds like me, I would love it if you provided your own example questions for people to consider.
Even if you can only have this conversation with one other person in the PRC, it will help. That person may go on to talk to other PR people. They may learn that they actually feel really strongly one way or another on the topic. The less taboo this conversation becomes, the better. The more openly people talk about their experiences with the PRC and internal vs external investigations, the more likely it is that information will come out that shapes the conversation across the denomination.
How to start the conversation:
"Something that has been on my mind a lot lately is how we can help people who are being abused in our church. What are your thoughts on our church hiring experts outside of our church to assist with abuse investigations?"
If you are concerned that people will know you got the idea here, remember that if they recognize it from here that means they're reading here too. Turn it into a positive. "Oh, so you've checked out the site too? What did you think about what they had to say about external investigations?"
Try to focus as much as possible about not inserting your own opinions or thoughts. This is about exploring their thoughts and learning about why they might be resistant to the idea. What convinced you may not necessarily convince them. I'm not suggesting that you hide your opinions on the matter, but rather that you only share opinions that you've been directly asked about and nothing more. Keep your questions neutral - you don't want them to feel like you're judging their opinion by how you phrased your question.
It's important to leave space and think carefully about your next question after they've answered. Sometimes while you're thinking about a new question to ask to drive the conversation forward they may fill that empty space with more of their thoughts. Silence can be a powerful motivator for people to start saying more about something they held back on earlier.
If there's something you don't quite agree with or understand their reasoning for, don't contradict them. Instead, repeat it back to them. If they believed that external investigations are unnecessary because the church has done a good job in the past, then ask for clarity on the subject. "Am I understanding correctly that you don't think an external investigation is necessary because you think our church handles investigations fine on their own?" Give them the chance to flesh out what they mean by that. It may be that when you repeat it back they realize their views are more nuanced than they originally relayed to you.
If they hold fast to something you still disagree with, start gently probing that with questions. Let's say they continued to hold to their statement that the consistory has handled past investigations well. "What are some ways you think our church has handled investigations well in the past?" "Do you think there's anything that our church could improve on when it comes to internal investigations?" "What would be something you would be concerned to hear about in regards to how our church handled an internal investigation?". Even if you have the perfect evidence to contradict their stance, do not bring it up. If you found that contradictory evidence, chances are that they can find it too. Let them find it on their own time.
If your conversation partner says something that is factually wrong in support of their views, again, avoid contradicting them. "Would your opinion of our church's investigations change if that weren't the case?" A question like this is a really important point to pay attention to. If they would still hold to their original statement even if the particular point they made was factually wrong, then there's no point in correcting their view. It won't get them any closer to agreeing that an external investigation is necessary. Start trying to figure out what is actually important to them in holding the view. Maybe ask a question like this: "Why wouldn't that change your opinion on an external investigations?"
If they agree that contradictory evidence would change their mind, then it might be appropriate to gently point out that you've heard differently. This is a really, really touchy point in the conversation. Sometimes contradicting their point will shut them down and make them feel ashamed for having wrong information, or even make them feel like they weren't being listened to genuinely - that all you cared about in the conversation was convincing them of your viewpoints. It would be best to try and craft a question that will encourage them to look back into it on their own time. "How could you find out if you have all the details correct?" "Do you think it's important to spend more time looking into that if it will change your opinion on how to handle investigations in the future?" "Do you know of any people who disagree?"
The whole point of these questions isn't necessarily to convince them of your opinion on the matter. It's to understand what they think, why they think it, and help them consider what parts of their belief might be subject to change. You might find when exploring their beliefs that they have some really good points that you've never thought about, and you may go home with some important information to reflect on. If you can help them gain clarity on their beliefs, chances are they will go home thinking very deeply and openly about what they've said to you, and even spend some time on their own reconsidering the facts they gave to you. Often, people are most willing to admit they were wrong about something when they're on their own, privately.
Here's are some basic examples of Socratic questions that I found through some quick googling. If you want more examples of real life conversations, you can check out "Socratic questioning" or "street epistemology" on YouTube.
websites.umich.edu/~elements/probsolv/strategy/cthinking.htm
positivepsychology.com/socratic-questioning/#examples
positivepsychology.com/socratic-questioning/#techniques
www.unl.edu/gradstudies/connections/socratic-questioning
courses.cs.vt.edu/cs2104/Spring14McQuain/Notes/SocraticQ.pdf
Even if you can only have this conversation with one other person in the PRC, it will help. That person may go on to talk to other PR people. They may learn that they actually feel really strongly one way or another on the topic. The less taboo this conversation becomes, the better. The more openly people talk about their experiences with the PRC and internal vs external investigations, the more likely it is that information will come out that shapes the conversation across the denomination.
How to start the conversation:
"Something that has been on my mind a lot lately is how we can help people who are being abused in our church. What are your thoughts on our church hiring experts outside of our church to assist with abuse investigations?"
If you are concerned that people will know you got the idea here, remember that if they recognize it from here that means they're reading here too. Turn it into a positive. "Oh, so you've checked out the site too? What did you think about what they had to say about external investigations?"
Try to focus as much as possible about not inserting your own opinions or thoughts. This is about exploring their thoughts and learning about why they might be resistant to the idea. What convinced you may not necessarily convince them. I'm not suggesting that you hide your opinions on the matter, but rather that you only share opinions that you've been directly asked about and nothing more. Keep your questions neutral - you don't want them to feel like you're judging their opinion by how you phrased your question.
It's important to leave space and think carefully about your next question after they've answered. Sometimes while you're thinking about a new question to ask to drive the conversation forward they may fill that empty space with more of their thoughts. Silence can be a powerful motivator for people to start saying more about something they held back on earlier.
If there's something you don't quite agree with or understand their reasoning for, don't contradict them. Instead, repeat it back to them. If they believed that external investigations are unnecessary because the church has done a good job in the past, then ask for clarity on the subject. "Am I understanding correctly that you don't think an external investigation is necessary because you think our church handles investigations fine on their own?" Give them the chance to flesh out what they mean by that. It may be that when you repeat it back they realize their views are more nuanced than they originally relayed to you.
If they hold fast to something you still disagree with, start gently probing that with questions. Let's say they continued to hold to their statement that the consistory has handled past investigations well. "What are some ways you think our church has handled investigations well in the past?" "Do you think there's anything that our church could improve on when it comes to internal investigations?" "What would be something you would be concerned to hear about in regards to how our church handled an internal investigation?". Even if you have the perfect evidence to contradict their stance, do not bring it up. If you found that contradictory evidence, chances are that they can find it too. Let them find it on their own time.
If your conversation partner says something that is factually wrong in support of their views, again, avoid contradicting them. "Would your opinion of our church's investigations change if that weren't the case?" A question like this is a really important point to pay attention to. If they would still hold to their original statement even if the particular point they made was factually wrong, then there's no point in correcting their view. It won't get them any closer to agreeing that an external investigation is necessary. Start trying to figure out what is actually important to them in holding the view. Maybe ask a question like this: "Why wouldn't that change your opinion on an external investigations?"
If they agree that contradictory evidence would change their mind, then it might be appropriate to gently point out that you've heard differently. This is a really, really touchy point in the conversation. Sometimes contradicting their point will shut them down and make them feel ashamed for having wrong information, or even make them feel like they weren't being listened to genuinely - that all you cared about in the conversation was convincing them of your viewpoints. It would be best to try and craft a question that will encourage them to look back into it on their own time. "How could you find out if you have all the details correct?" "Do you think it's important to spend more time looking into that if it will change your opinion on how to handle investigations in the future?" "Do you know of any people who disagree?"
The whole point of these questions isn't necessarily to convince them of your opinion on the matter. It's to understand what they think, why they think it, and help them consider what parts of their belief might be subject to change. You might find when exploring their beliefs that they have some really good points that you've never thought about, and you may go home with some important information to reflect on. If you can help them gain clarity on their beliefs, chances are they will go home thinking very deeply and openly about what they've said to you, and even spend some time on their own reconsidering the facts they gave to you. Often, people are most willing to admit they were wrong about something when they're on their own, privately.
Here's are some basic examples of Socratic questions that I found through some quick googling. If you want more examples of real life conversations, you can check out "Socratic questioning" or "street epistemology" on YouTube.
websites.umich.edu/~elements/probsolv/strategy/cthinking.htm
positivepsychology.com/socratic-questioning/#examples
positivepsychology.com/socratic-questioning/#techniques
www.unl.edu/gradstudies/connections/socratic-questioning
courses.cs.vt.edu/cs2104/Spring14McQuain/Notes/SocraticQ.pdf