The idea the "both sides do it" is inaccurate, and frankly sloppy rhetoric. Yet it's true that neither side alone can bridge the divisions ruining our country.
Simplified, here’s the Socratic dialogue approach in 5 steps:
1. Receive...
First, receive what the other person has to say. This means listening to the other person’s premise, view or argument. And remember you must properly listen to be able to do the next step.
2. Reflect...
Sum up the person’s viewpoint or argument and reflect it back. Do this by first getting them to clarify and sum up their position and then by paraphrasing or repeating it back to them.
3. Refine...
Ask them to provide their evidence. Find out why they are thinking or acting in that way. Discover the facts, beliefs or assumptions that underpin their standpoint. Often the premise will be based on assumptions rather than hard facts. Challenge these assumptions to test their validity.
Use further questions to uncover the fallacy of any wrong presuppositions. These are often ‘why’ questions. For example: “why do you think that?” Sometimes it can be helpful to construct the ‘why’ question as a ‘what’ question for example: “what makes you think that?” This is because why questions can often feel confrontational.
At times you may need to provide contrary evidence to challenge an assumption but try and structure this as a question too if possible. If there is a cognitive fallacy (a wrong way of thinking) then try and get them to find an exception (or if necessary, provide one) that proves their own theory wrong. Discover and explore this circumstance to discover new, better thinking. In this way, you are refining the basic premise of the discussion.
4. Re-state...
Now that you have refined your thinking get them to reformulate and re-state their position. If they see that they had a wrong assumption, get them to adapt or renew their wording and then re-state it.
5. Repeat...
Now they have a new viewpoint you can go back to the start of the process. You can assess the new premise and challenge any further wrong assumptions in their thinking. This method becomes a cycle of dialogue. The iterative or dialectic process helps to drill down further and further to get to the core of the issue.
And that’s it. Simple. The question technique framework is easy to remember; the skill comes in applying it. The challenge, as noted before, is to really listen to the other person and truly commit to coming to a better-shared understanding of the issue.
Before or after the physical altercation the opposition erupts to. Alot of the world are gradually coming to conclusion both sides are not doing any country any good. America hangs on to democrat/republican like football teams. It's a systems change the world over, not a party, we're just not allowed vote on that......we watch on from afar and wish America well
https://therightquestions.co/how-to-progress-from-debate-to-dialogue-using-the-socratic-method/
Simplified, here’s the Socratic dialogue approach in 5 steps:
1. Receive...
First, receive what the other person has to say. This means listening to the other person’s premise, view or argument. And remember you must properly listen to be able to do the next step.
2. Reflect...
Sum up the person’s viewpoint or argument and reflect it back. Do this by first getting them to clarify and sum up their position and then by paraphrasing or repeating it back to them.
3. Refine...
Ask them to provide their evidence. Find out why they are thinking or acting in that way. Discover the facts, beliefs or assumptions that underpin their standpoint. Often the premise will be based on assumptions rather than hard facts. Challenge these assumptions to test their validity.
Use further questions to uncover the fallacy of any wrong presuppositions. These are often ‘why’ questions. For example: “why do you think that?” Sometimes it can be helpful to construct the ‘why’ question as a ‘what’ question for example: “what makes you think that?” This is because why questions can often feel confrontational.
At times you may need to provide contrary evidence to challenge an assumption but try and structure this as a question too if possible. If there is a cognitive fallacy (a wrong way of thinking) then try and get them to find an exception (or if necessary, provide one) that proves their own theory wrong. Discover and explore this circumstance to discover new, better thinking. In this way, you are refining the basic premise of the discussion.
4. Re-state...
Now that you have refined your thinking get them to reformulate and re-state their position. If they see that they had a wrong assumption, get them to adapt or renew their wording and then re-state it.
5. Repeat...
Now they have a new viewpoint you can go back to the start of the process. You can assess the new premise and challenge any further wrong assumptions in their thinking. This method becomes a cycle of dialogue. The iterative or dialectic process helps to drill down further and further to get to the core of the issue.
And that’s it. Simple. The question technique framework is easy to remember; the skill comes in applying it. The challenge, as noted before, is to really listen to the other person and truly commit to coming to a better-shared understanding of the issue.
How to use on YouTube (3:00): https://youtu.be/USo7V6kwfEk?si=gkAfvc7kXqCjj9GB
Before or after the physical altercation the opposition erupts to. Alot of the world are gradually coming to conclusion both sides are not doing any country any good. America hangs on to democrat/republican like football teams. It's a systems change the world over, not a party, we're just not allowed vote on that......we watch on from afar and wish America well