Socratic and Maeutic Methods

“The difficult but critical part in addressing a situation lies not in seeking the answers, but in first framing the right questions.”

I have heard from friends/colleagues that the Socratic method is my natural preference in discussions. I have been intrigued as to what does this method talk about and how is my natural preference related to this method. On delving further I have realized that my preference is a derivative of the Socratic method. It is called “The Maieutic Method ”.

The Maeutic method is based on the idea that truth is latent in the mind of every human being (through traditions and experiences of past generations) but has to “given birth” by answering intelligently posed questions.

The Socratic method also involves questioning but is aimed at exposing the individual’s erroneous conceptions/prejudices.

I don’t have an opinion (neither agree nor disagree) with the belief in the Maeutic method that truth is latent in the mind of every human being because of traditions and experience of past generations. But I do relate to the other details of the Maeutic method

But is this method always applicable? What are the situations it might be applicable in? What are the situations it might not be applicable in? Are there certain preconditions for this method to work effectively?

I draw from my personal experiences in answering these questions.

• The Maeutic method works in a situation where, in the short term, there is an obvious carrot at stake. Hence the method works in interviews and with interns.
• In a peer-peer or a superior –subordinate relationship a high degree of trust is required for the Maeutic method to work. An individual whose questions are answered with questions might feel threatened. S/he may feel “questioned”. The Maeutic method involves inviting an individual to be willing to “explore” and that too in the darkness for atleast some period of time. Would you be willing to do that in the presence of someone you don’t trust? Without trust, engaging in a Mauetic method of discussion would lead to creation of defenses. These defenses would get manifested in various ways, viz:

· ‘I can’t figure out the answer.’

· ‘I think I have a sense of it but I can’t put a word/sentence to it.’

· ‘You tell me the answer’, etc.

· The Maeutic method helps in problem identification (cause and effect analysis), alternative generation and evaluation, and charting out a course of action. But we need to be careful in the alternative generation stage.

· The Maeutic method involves intellectual discipline. Consequently there is a risk that at the alternative generation stage, only well cooked/thought through ideas is expressed. Ideas which might initially sound wild or half cooked but may effectively address the situation would consequently not even be expressed.

· I have frequently found that we are uncomfortable with a state of “non-closure”. This leads us to usually pick from among the first few, if not the first, solution which makes sense to us. “Cognitive dissonance” is the term for this J (My HR Background does provide me with an armor of HR lingo J).

· It might be a better idea to sensitize the individual/group to the fact that we are in a brainstorming stage and hence all ideas (including wild and half cooked ideas) can be expressed.

· The Maeutic method presupposed that the individual has all the answers or atleast is capable of finding his/her answers. There would be cases where this is not true or where it would be more beneficial for the individual to be provided an answer.

· Coaching is certainly based on the Maeutic principle. The coach takes a ‘coach position’ and guides the individual towards framing his/her problem/s and finding out effective solutions. In most cases, the coach does not provide the answers. This may be the reason why coaching comes naturally to me.

-

Sourav