And when you add some of the practices later generations call Socratic, my dislike just increases. The teaching approach known as the Socratic Method and still practiced widely, particularly in law schools, is mainly horrendous. Law Schools pretty much are a pedagogical North Korea, anyway, but the idea of putting someone one the spot, without any acknowledgement of power relations, how the person on the spot might feel, or what the actual learning outcomes are is just despicable.Given all this hatin' I'm heaping on poor old Socrates, it may be surprising I want to endorse as aspect of the real Socratic method: the importance of the relationship the learner and the teacher have. The best spin on the Socratic method is that the teacher helps the learner to figure out, for herself, how to do whatever she is trying to do. But the key is that she does need someone, and the someone -- the teacher -- had better be pretty good at knowing what to focus on. So even here, I find Socrates' claims of his own ignorance obnoxious false humility.
Let's talk details. My details have nothing to do with theory, politics, or even academia. I'm what you might call an adult-onset jock, and over the last decade or so, I've been trying to learn new kinds of athletic skills. I was a fat klutz when I was a kid, so the odds weren't so good, but I've figured out a thing or two. I've noticed a big difference in how fast I make progress, though, and it's all about the teaching I get.
 |
| Too many pullups, ProfLM! Don't be stupid. |
The difference, to me, is all about getting instruction. It's not about how much I practice. You need someone who can help you figure it out. There are, of course, also differences between good and less good instructors, and I might write about that at some point, but what I figured pretty early in my college career -- you can't learn philosophy on your own -- seems to be true in athletic skills, too. And probably in a host of things in-between those two.
And the need for instructors -- let's just call them coaches -- doesn't go away. Last year, the amazingly multitalented Atul Gawande (surgeon! professor! New Yorker staff writer!) wrote an article on the importance of coaches for anybody at any stage of their career. I won't try to capture his argument because you'll be better off just reading his piece, but the point is straightforward: having an expert help you learn and practice is always helpful. That requires real humility, not the false variety Socrates was so good at.
I found this lecture on Socrates and the Socratic Method to be particularly enlightening and interesting. In my high school English class we often had "socratic seminars" where it would be a class wide discussion on readings we had for homework; however, I was not really familiar with the details of what the Socratic Method actually meant.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Plato's "Apology" I was annoyed by Socrates and his manner of handling his trial, feeling as though he was the equivalent of the modern day person in an internet fight calling someone out for a misspelled word instead of focusing on the point being made. His strategy seemed to be to to badger people to the point of anger and confusion instead of being logical. His circular logic of saying that he cannot be the wisest because he knows nothing, which in turn makes him wise because he is aware of his lack of knowledge is self serving and leaves no room for argument.
Having said those negative things about him, he did get me thinking in another regard: about the truth being the most important. In our modern world and legal system, the truth isn't always the final outcome, instead the majority opinion becomes the truth. In circumstances such as the O.J Simpson Trial, the Casey Anthony verdict, etc. where there is much evidence suggesting the guilt of the accused, we must accept the jurors decision and that becomes the new "truth". I understand and agree with the value of this system because it oftentimes keeps innocent people out of jail, however, it has caused a shift in the value of the truth. Truth is no longer built upon absolute facts and true situations, but rather what many people perceive and agree upon.
Socrates has definitely caused me to reexamine the value, and the definition, of the truth.
I'm a firm believer in succeeding with as little help as possible. However, ironically enough, being a student here at the University of Michigan makes my statement sound totally contradicting, I know. But what I mean is, succeeding on your own is one of the most rewarding feelings a person can ever feel; to say that you did X on your own sounds equally as shocking as it does badass. But on the other hand, there's no shame in admitting that you need help in achieving whatever it is you're trying to do. Especially when it comes to learning.
ReplyDeleteThat's probably why I feel as though Socrates's idea that wise men in actuality possess no wisdom, yet fools boast theirs to the masses is seemingly an amazing philosophical concept at first glance, but upon examination is really just a sham. I mean, surely if I was trying to learn how to cook I would never dare approach a man who claims to suck at it. I already suck at cooking, I don’t need you to suck too. Instead, I would want the guy who's throwing around a bunch of obscure spices and offering private classes in his famous restaurant. I mean, success correlates pretty well with skill and knowledge…for the most part.
But nevertheless, I couldn’t get past Socrates’s claim. I mean, granted we associate wise men with humility, patience, and all that good stuff, but that's because I feel as though Western civilization has an obsession with ascribing wise men with all of these positive attributes. If you think back to every corny film with some wise, old guru, they always tell you that they have acquired their skills of "perfect" virtuosity through time. So why is it so hard to picture an arrogant or boastful wise man? Perhaps he has yet to discover that particular truth of wisdom or has realized a "truth" that we refuse to believe that involves being a huge asshole.
But I guess the latter statement is why I found Socrates's statement, "why do you...care so much about...money and honor and reputation, and so little about wisdom and truth...?" to be particularly interesting. The way I see it, truth is but a collective opinion for some and a small epiphany for others. It is a concept with far too many possibilities for meaning. Like I said before, maybe the truth is that the world really is just a wretched place that is all about money and honor and reputation, but we deny it because our moral/ethical intuitions tell us to.
I'm afraid I disagree somewhat with Gawande's view that "...having an expert help you learn and practice is always helpful."
ReplyDeleteIn my own experience, I have found that there are many situations, both in athletics and academics, where where having expert help is less useful than having no help at all. Perhaps the two best examples of this I have experienced have been in Nordic skiing and in creative writing.
In both of these situations, it was helpful to have expert help sometimes; however, there were significant situations where expert help was or would have been counter-productive. For skiing, learning the initial technique required expert help. Refining and 'personalizing' that technique to fit both my body and athletic style had to be done on my own. Additionally, practicing with the team and coach was helpful; but practicing on weekends alone allowed me to push myself to my pace, rather than conforming to someone else's. This is important, because in races I would be alone and at my own pace, and I believe it was essential that I practiced in those exact circumstances.
I also believe that the Socratic method is only one part of solid educational practice. I bring up creative writing because it raises the issue of 'peer help' as opposed to 'expert help'. Socrates' method has the teacher teaching the students. I believe that peer review and collaboration can often be more helpful than expert help. When I was practicing creative writing, usually the most useful help I received was from my peers, offering comments and critiques of my writing which came with a very different perception than those from my teachers.
I believe that there are many exceptions to this view; not enough to argue the opposite-that having an expert help you is never helpful-but enough to refute the proposed absolute.
I would hesitate to agree with your criticism of the Socratic method. There are certain skills that require assistance and guidance from the more experienced guide. However, these experiences always entail skills that are most often done in a certain way. For example, rock climbing may, to an extent, allow creativity, but there are certain parts of it that require a certain technique that cannot be altered. The same is the case for a situation like attempting to solve a mathematical problem or any action that has a specified and unique end result. The end result of a mathematical equation is the solution, and the end result for rock climbing is ascension to the top. There may be different methods to reach this end result, yet the end result is fixed, and I agree with you that the Socratic Method here does not apply.
ReplyDeleteThe Socratic Method, however, is meant to be used in situations where the end result is not certain, and is much more liable to change based on the student. A teacher or guide has an enormous influence on the student's direction, and in my opinion, the most successful method to ensure that the student arrives to his or her own conclusion is through the Socratic Method. In the Socratic Method, the teacher will simply critique the information that the student brings up, which would sharpen the student's ideas is to constantly poke holes in his or her logic until there are far less vulnerabilities to the logic than at first. It essentially narrows the student's thoughts down, which would decrease the chances of future flaws in the student's ideas. The Socratic Method also points out the flaws in the student's logic, which might humiliate him or her at first, but it eventually leads the student to a point of enlightenment where he or she does not consider flaws.
The Socratic Method may not be the most successful in learning a skill, but it certainly aids the student considerably with problems that don't necessarily have a solution. It helps with studies such as law because they are so open to interpretation. There isn't always a single reading of the law, and it is the job of lawyers and judges to come to the conclusion of what the law says.
A key component to the Socratic Method, to me, is embarrassment. People hate being embarrassed, and will do many an odd things to avoid its continuing discomfort. Slightly off topic to the Socratic Method is my embarrassing onslaught of pimples in middle school. Young ladies fled my pizza-face as if it was some reincarnation of Genghis Khan about to lay siege on their home city. Throwing my pride on the ground and stepping on it repeatedly, I stole my mom's coverup and proceeded to hide this embarrassment (please no one read this save people responsible for my grade). Anyway, relating this back to Socrates and his method, his thrashing of his student's pride probably lead to that student never being caught off guard again. Socrates used his students' embarrassment against them. I am not disagreeing that Socrates is a jerk. He really does put the ass in embarrASSment. What I am saying, however, is that there is something to say for his method. Why else would top law schools continue to flaunt his theory? According to forbes.com, the top 10 law school graduates earn median wages of at least $108,000 (#10 is Michigan by the way). This sizabale chunk of change can then, in a way, be due to that asshole Socrates and his method. He taught through embarrassment, and law students today still reap the benefits of this practice.
ReplyDeleteThis does go against the good relationship of coach and underling, but if I rake in 6-figures due to some stuck up old guy, I think I can forgive him in the long run. Money may not buy happiness, but it does buy some really nice stuff like, let's say, a Michigan Education for my kids. And, sadly to say, stuff makes me sleep well at night. I am all for liking your coach, but I am more worried about the results in the end. If that means having some embarrassment and using my mom's coverup, than so be it.