[andi999]

Are you ever proven wrong as the questioner. The original method consist of extending the argument so far that at some point some contradiction will show up. Instead of blaming it on the extension then one claims victory and that the original statement was wrong.

[nine_zeros]

> Are you ever proven wrong as the questioner.

The biggest mistake made by humans is to think that they are always right. Very often, questioners don't realize that their line of reasoning has flaws. Their stubbornness in pursuing a contradiction only succeeds if there is a contradiction they were already aware of. Otherwise, it just makes the questioner appear as an asshole

[mike741]

What is the questioners line of reasoning if they haven't made any claims? If they have made a mixture of claims and questions then they can have flaws but its misleading to call them "questioners" at that point, since they've done more than just ask questions.

> Their stubbornness in pursuing a contradiction only succeeds if there is a contradiction they were already aware of

I don't think this is true at all. You can recognize a statement of the form "X is not X" without having come across it before. As for the stubbornness, this can apply to both parties: the contradiction only appears when the answering party can't bring themselves to say "I don't know", "I assume", or "I don't have time for this"

[nine_zeros]

I think you answered it for yourself.

The Socratic method claims to find inconsistencies by asking questions. Thus, these questions are not questions of curiosity, but questions with an underlying line of reasoning. This in itself leads the answerer to feel that the questioner is disingenuous in the conversation. They could walk away from the conversation, rendering the questioners entire effort futile.

[BeetleB]

> Are you ever proven wrong as the questioner.

That's a great question, which I'll eventually address.

I wrote a bit about it in another comment[1], but I'll expand here.

Asking questions often forces the recipient to stop what they're doing and think up an answer - it can be disruptive to their flow. People are generally busy, and if this happens in a work setting, they definitely are busy. So they'll want to know why they're expending the effort to answer these questions.

Many of them have been taught that answering the question with "Why do you want to know?" is considered impolite.[2] Unfortunately, they've not been taught a polite way to phrase the question, so they don't ask. This adds to their frustration and annoyance at the questioner. If you've ever seen someone say with clear frustration "Why do you want to know?" it's because they've been trying to restrain themselves from asking this question and they finally cracked.

Most people, if they don't have an answer, will conjure one up. Since they cannot get the answer to "Why do you want to know?" they will make assumptions. A common assumption is that you are asking these questions to prove a point (i.e. these are leading questions). People do not like leading questions. And they'll make a guess at the point you're trying to make when you ask all these questions.

So when you ask "Can a questioner ever be proven to be wrong?" - for most people the assumption will be that you have an argument you are trying to make, and the questions you are asking are to support that argument. That is where the notion of a questioner being wrong comes from. My personal experience is that even when I'm genuinely curious and do not have a stance, people will attribute a stance to me when I ask them questions.

There's also another dynamic at play here. Anyone can, with almost no cognitive burden, come up with questions to ask. Answering them often has a significant cognitive burden. When someone is having a conversation with you and all you're doing is asking questions, that person can clearly see the imbalance in cognitive load. They'll feel (perhaps correctly), that they're doing most of the work in the conversation. They're the ones contributing to it, and the questioner is not really contributing anything to the conversation. So why should he bother answering all these questions?

Give, and ye shall receive. The one asking the questions is not giving. Hence the resentment.

People are busy. If you want them to answer your questions, make it worth their effort. If you don't, their frustration will be legitimate. That's why when I don't have the energy to be polite, I respond with "I'm busy, and this is not worth my time."

BTW, asking questions to waste people's time, and to get them frustrated, is definitely a tactic people use against others. This alone is reason enough for people to be wary when someone comes asking a lot of questions.

One thing I've learned from communications books: If you have a concern, then express the concern openly before asking your question. This will make it clear to the recipient what your intent is, and they will not have to guess.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31884750

[2] A polite way I've learned, based on having it done to me several times, is the person I posed a question to responding with "It sounds like you're asking these questions because you have certain concerns on your mind. I'd like to hear them."

[nine_zeros]

This is an excellent post about Socratic method discussions. Very well described. I wish I could have saved it.

[BeetleB]

You can save comments on HN. Click on the timestamp to see the comment on its own page, and click on "Favorite".

[nine_zeros]

Lovely. Thank you.