[–] VoatSharkJump ago
I do this all the time at work. When people call in all incensed. However I cannot bash my own company. So how to agree with them. You dont say whatever f'd up thing they are saying is true. You agree with how they feel. like that must be very fustrating. Then begin to point out that there is another way to look at the situation. if they start to get mad again admit you dont know everything either and at that point ask them what they think or better yet how they feel. then "try" something. Oh that worked lol. Then leave them feeling good. Because people remember how youmade them feel more than anything you said. Say something like I am glad we could get you whole again. Thank you for your patience and time. That and the scotty meathod make me employee of the month every month.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
[–] 8291399? 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
The Socratic method is a great way to do this. Just ask them questions as to why they think the way they do, agree with them, and then ask a question that gets them to consider an alternative point of view. Make the question a leading question sometimes. They'll "discover" something new, and feel smarter, than if they're simply told it outright.
[–] jinbnters 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
What you described is not the Socratic questioning methodology, but a bastardized version which doesn't explore thought on the way to and of why the answer you arrive upon is correct.
The reasoning being is, among other aspects, that you say agree with them but both Plato and Socrates often held different views to people whom they were speaking to, or at least in part. In the dialogues they each have thats clear and they offer alternative thought and examples which lead the questioning in the desired direction by working them through the train of thought in a logical manner and exploring why this direction and answer are correct.
What you describe is using pajeet tier Socratic questioning methodology to manipulate people into your point of view.
[–] RicardoCabesa 3 points -1 points 2 points (+2|-3) ago
So, first you have to agree with something they believe, then point out where they are wrong.
That's true, Achmed, the sun does set in a puddle of mud. However Mohammed was a pedophilic, illiterate barbarian who deserves eternal hell fire.
[–] dajabang 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Pedophiles don't wait 4 years to have sex with children they are married to.
[–] RicardoCabesa ago
Moral people do not try to justify raping 10 year olds.
[–] gazillions 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I think you'd get more mileage if you ended with, "Mohammed was a great guy because he was strongly against sex with children" Leaves them having to correct you themselves. Oops.