Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Socratic Method in an Age of Trauma (2017) [pdf]

harvardlawreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: The Socratic Method in an Age of Trauma (2017) [pdf]

#21

Post by mirimir »

mirimir wrote: post #10
roenxi wrote: post #8

Well, it is nice to see someone going straight for the details. Do we have any context on why this ... short novel :) ... was written? I want to interpret this as a coinciding of two things; the first that the "Socratic Method" as described here would be a powerful method of creating and perpetuating a culture amongst law students trained at Harvard; where their opinions and beliefs are subjected to a very public exa…

IANAL, and so have no opinion on the merits of her article. However, I have concerns about "topics that are 'too hot to handle'" in the sciences. For example, a recent thread[0] about Hill (2017) An elementary mathematical theory for the variability hypothesis.[1,2,3] And by the way, there's lots of great discussion in the comments on the Quillette article.[1] And it's interesting that the deleted NYJM paper is onlin…

And more generally, it can be difficult now to research possible differences among protected categories, such as genders, races or sexual orientations. There are exceptions, for sure, such as differences in response to diet recommendations, medical treatment, or drug therapy. But otherwise, it can be a minefield. Student protests. Difficulty with funding. Tenure blocks. Difficulty publishing.

There's failure to make a key distinction, here. Sexism or racism involve judging people on the basis of their gender or race. But that's not the case for experimental studies of differences. There are, of course, confounding issues that complicate interpretation of results. Humans are so readily programmable that it's very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to attribute any observed differences to biological hardware vs cultural influence. But that's just something for the discussion. It's not a valid reason to block the work.

Also, the idea that some work shouldn't be done, because it upsets or discourages some protected group, is very dangerous. It's contrary to the overall concept of experimental science. And yes, there are parallels to nuclear research back in the day, and to machine-learning and AI work now. But even there, refusing to look seems ultimately destructive.

Re: The Socratic Method in an Age of Trauma (2017) [pdf]

#22

Post by nradov »

huffmsa wrote: post #15
imgabe wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess you might defend the "Socratic" method as a way of encouraging student engagement. But I suspect that it really appeals to people who like the idea of discourse as combat (DEBATE ME!) I think that is the trait that law schools want to select for.

That's the heart of the issue. The JD has recently become the envogue MBA. So it's been getting a lot of students who aren't there to actually learn about being a lawyer.

A JD can be great training for business leaders even if they never intend on practicing law. It teaches people to get right to the heart of an issue and ask the essential questions. Some graduate schools offer joint JD/MBA programs.

Re: The Socratic Method in an Age of Trauma (2017) [pdf]

#23

Post by zbentley »

huffmsa wrote: post #17
pjc50 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between the Harvard Law Review and glib dismissals of a serious issue is the other 14,000 words of the article.

No, I read it. I think the Socratic approach is the best way to teach law. The profession requires one to be outwardly strident, speak up and fight for your points lest the opposing counsel win. We have electrician learn by doing electrical work. Doctors do residencies. If you aren't the right personality for the profession, then that's the breaks. And finally, length of ones document is not an indication of quality.…

> The profession requires one to be outwardly strident, speak up and fight for your points lest the opposing counsel win.

Those qualities and actions bear little relation to what the vast majority of lawyers do at work. They do, however, closely resemble lawyers as portrayed on television and in fiction.

Re: The Socratic Method in an Age of Trauma (2017) [pdf]

#24

Post by projektfu »

I've always found the term "Socratic Method" to be interesting, as it usually just means that they ask a lot of questions, using them to make the students demonstrate knowledge of the material and defend or abandon their ideas of what the meaning of the law is. From my philosophy classes, however, I remember Plato's Socrates was using questions more like a prosecutor, as a way of rope-a-doping the interlocutor to make him say something contradictory or unreasonable, and then Socrates would knock him out.

Re: The Socratic Method in an Age of Trauma (2017) [pdf]

#25

Post by huffmsa »

zbentley wrote: post #23
huffmsa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I read it. I think the Socratic approach is the best way to teach law. The profession requires one to be outwardly strident, speak up and fight for your points lest the opposing counsel win. We have electrician learn by doing electrical work. Doctors do residencies. If you aren't the right personality for the profession, then that's the breaks. And finally, length of ones document is not an indication of quality.…

> The profession requires one to be outwardly strident, speak up and fight for your points lest the opposing counsel win. Those qualities and actions bear little relation to what the vast majority of lawyers do at work. They do, however, closely resemble lawyers as portrayed on television and in fiction.

If you're not writing your briefs and opinions like you're 100% hand to God correct, you're not doing it right.

No one wants a lawyer who writes weak contracts.

Re: The Socratic Method in an Age of Trauma (2017) [pdf]

#26

Post by mistrial9 »

watwut wrote: post #19
liftbigweights wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Despite completing degrees in philosophy, I've never experienced the sort of "Socratic" method that is apparently practiced in law schools The socratic method isn't really practiced anywhere in academia. Even in philosophy classes, it's mostly passive learning through an authority figure. It's why so many students take notes. You can't take notes while participating in a socratic discussion. Also, socratic method r…

Why would it be impossible to take notes during discussion of questions and answers? If it is, then the whole discussion was likely about speed and reflex instead of thought out answers (which takes a bit more time and is slower).

the mental environment is wits, response and inquiry in real time.. it is a different cognative mode than writing notes. Notes are actively discouraged.

Re: The Socratic Method in an Age of Trauma (2017) [pdf]

#27

Post by mistrial9 »

roenxi wrote: post #8

Well, it is nice to see someone going straight for the details. Do we have any context on why this ... short novel :) ... was written? I want to interpret this as a coinciding of two things; the first that the "Socratic Method" as described here would be a powerful method of creating and perpetuating a culture amongst law students trained at Harvard; where their opinions and beliefs are subjected to a very public exa…

hmm .. there is something badly missing in this response.. The word 'trauma' has a serious medical meaning aside from whatever this paper says.. The quick associations encoded above in 'Part of the fringe push to redefine "injury" to mean hearing something unpleasant or disagreeable.' is not only accusatory via some unspoken point of view, but also dismisses the medical definitions of trauma.

Re: The Socratic Method in an Age of Trauma (2017) [pdf]

#28

Post by sctb »

huffmsa wrote: post #17
pjc50 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between the Harvard Law Review and glib dismissals of a serious issue is the other 14,000 words of the article.

No, I read it. I think the Socratic approach is the best way to teach law. The profession requires one to be outwardly strident, speak up and fight for your points lest the opposing counsel win. We have electrician learn by doing electrical work. Doctors do residencies. If you aren't the right personality for the profession, then that's the breaks. And finally, length of ones document is not an indication of quality.…

Next time can we please skip straight to the informative comment?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The Socratic Method in an Age of Trauma (2017) [pdf]

#29

Post by cicero »

projektfu wrote: post #24

I've always found the term "Socratic Method" to be interesting, as it usually just means that they ask a lot of questions, using them to make the students demonstrate knowledge of the material and defend or abandon their ideas of what the meaning of the law is. From my philosophy classes, however, I remember Plato's Socrates was using questions more like a prosecutor, as a way of rope-a-doping the interlocutor to mak…

If you take Socrates at his word, I think he is sincerely trying to find answers. He asks a question that he really wants to know the answer to, but then sees potential flaws in the answer, so he asks more questions to test the strength of the answer. Even though he ends of "knocking out" his interlocutor, I think he would prefer to get an answer that holds up to scrutiny.

I think the value of good Socratic questioning is to get the student to examine his assumptions and to learn to think more deeply. However, it can easily become an intimidating bullying session if done incorrectly.

Re: The Socratic Method in an Age of Trauma (2017) [pdf]

#30

Post by alexpotato »

I spent 15 years coaching college paintball and the Socratic method was invaluable to me in getting important topics across.

Why?

The problem:

- Paintball has game theory that is very different from traditional sports

- Most people haven't had 15 years of playing time when they get to college and want to play paintball (as opposed to say, soccer).

- I needed to get people up to speed quickly.

So here is an example of how I used the Socratic method (and hopefully you learn something too!):

- Me: Given two teams A and B, what are the odds that A beats be? This is not a trick question.

- Player: 50%?

- Me: Correct! Now if someone on team B gets eliminated what are the odds of team A winning? In other words, what are the odds of winning a 5 vs 4? This is kind of a trick question as I had to collect a lot of stats to determine this.

- Player: I don't know, somewhere between 60 and 80%??

- Me: Close! That's what most people guess and the correct answer is 75%. Next question: if you are on team A and you are eliminated, what happens to team B's odds of winning?

- Player: I guess they would go from ~25% to 50%

- Me: In other words...?

- Player: They double!

- Me: Right! So what do you think is the most important thing to do if you are in a 5 v 4?

- Player: Stay alive?

- Me: Excellent!

Had I just told people "Don't get eliminated in a 5v4! Do you understand?" and they said "Yes!" I wouldn't really know if they understood or not.

This is why, when talking to tech folks, I often explain the Socratic method as a cross between programming and debugging.

The questions you ask a. allow you to "debug" the thought process of the person you are speaking too and b. can act as a directed linked list to an end state you are looking for.

I would also add, the Socratic method can be done completely with positive reinforcement. B.F. Skinner is famous for saying "People would be amazed what can be achieved with only positive reinforcement."

That being said, some organizations e.g. law schools, the military etc believe that the anxiety in a more punishment based system causes the information to "stick" better.

YMMV.

Post reply on HN