Don’t raise your voice; improve your argument.

Good sense does not always lie with the loudest shouters, nor can we say that a large, unruly crowd is always the best arbiter of what is right.

A friend of mine is a fairly passionate conspiracy theorist.

I’m skeptical about most conspiracy theories.

We enjoy debating each other; but it was frustrating at first.

He always thought I was naive. And I always thought he was naive.

Once, I recall vehemently doubting the existence of a document he claimed to have read which supported one of his conspiracies.

It turns out the document he read did actually exist.

We were both upset about the debate.

I had insisted the document was fictitious.

And he had insisted that I was ignoring evidence.

Our debate had achieved little in developing an understanding.

A few days later, I came across the Socratic Method.

The simplest way to understand the Socratic Method is to contrast it with what people generally think of as “teaching”.

In a “normal” classroom, the lecturer stands at the front of the room and tells you information. They are the expert, and their job is to tell you information, which you then try to memorise and learn.

With the Socratic Method, the lecturer does not simply tell you information. They ask you questions. When you answer the question, they follow up with another question. And another, and another.

The purpose of it to make you think critically about your answer, and to make you learn more about the topic by being forced to engage deeply with it.

I decided to apply the Socratic Method to our next debate.

The next time my friend and I discussed the conspiracy, I let him explain his reasoning and the basis for his claims.

Instead of doubting them, I asked him to go deeper and explain the motivations behind certain parts of his theory.

I granted him certain facts, and then proposed other, easier ways the objective could have been accomplished without conspiracy.

Instead of insisting the document we had previously argued about was fake, we discussed alternative interpretation of it, and whether it really supported his point as much as he originally thought it did.

Eventually, he agreed that while he did not believe the official story, he was no longer certain that his theory was true.

In the end, we both enjoyed the debate.

Our debate helped us both to consider our perspectives and to find an understanding.

Use the Socratic Method next time you have an argument or debate.

Listen to your opponents’ argument.

And listen to understand; not just to respond.

Sometimes an element of their argument might be correct, even if you believe their conclusion to be wrong.

By ceding these points, or incorporating them into your argument, you establish common ground and reduce backfire.

The backfire effect is what turns a debate into a shouting match.

Get to the real points of disagreement.

Ask questions. And more questions.

Make your opponent think.

And think for yourself, too.

You’ll both come out with a richer understanding and perspective.

Don’t raise your voice; improve your argument.

Good sense does not always lie with the loudest shouters, nor can we say that a large, unruly crowd is always the best arbiter of what is right.