Cause it like if you're at a level of geometry where you can like work with the shapes, you're trying to figure out how can I figure out the area inside of some new shape. Um, and you have people kind of figuring that out, but I don't know if that's a dialogue. You know, it's a different thing than like... If it's the class figuring it out together or you have groups of people. I'm just, I hear you on the like, we get to calculus BC and it's like, you know, how are we going to talk about this, right? Yeah,

it's something that like, yes, I could sit with you and we could work on a problem together. But that is different than me pushing on your definitions of things. But instead

of asking questions that you're using the tools of reason and logic to poke holes in for doing Socratic math, you would not be asking questions, but you would be making suggestions as to what to try next. Why don't you try measuring all the sides? Why don't you try multiplying them together? And, like, some of them aren't going to work and some of them are going to work. So it's and then using the tools of, again, logic and reason like, oh, this didn't work. This didn't get us the right answer to chip away until you get to the like, wait, the tool that I just did this, the little algorithm that I just used to find the circumference of this thing. If I apply that same principle to a bigger thing, Hey, now we're onto something. And I think you could totally do that. I

would say that you're exercising logic, but I wouldn't call that the Socratic method. It might not be Socratic,

but it is like, um, kind of maybe conversational. It's, it's chipping away. But you just,

just chipping away, like you're, I wouldn't even call it chipping away. You are using different tools as an attempt to solve a problem. I don't even require another person for that. I

don't think you need another person for the Socrates method either.

You could ask your own questions. That's probably true. But I don't think the processes are the same. I'm not asking for a different definition. We are suggesting a new tool. And while Socrates may have

kind of done that, it's not the same kind of thing. I don't know. I don't know if this is the same point, but it just seems like there's something much less efficient using that method on the math and science side as compared to the English, maybe history, I don't know, side.

And I was going to say it's also kind of bad for science, right? Because it's bad for facts. It doesn't bring any facts forward. It kind of pokes at philosophical concepts and might bring a few facts into that, but it's bad for discovering facts about things. Like you could call the scientific process, which is you come up with a hypothesis and you test that hypothesis. Like you could kind of call that the scratiocratic method, I guess. But really, it's a scientific method, right? Where you come up with a thing and you test it with controls. It's a very different thing. And you're looking for facts and observing the world. And I wouldn't say that it's the exact same kind of process. I think it does come much more into a science class when you are talking about the implications of a new science or how it affects morality or how we should live in light of a certain science or how this might affect, I don't know, industries like that kind of stuff. Yes, you can have discussions about that. But for actual scientific discovery, I'm not sure it's the same thing. It's really bad for PE and it's not great for parties. Okay, great. Awesome. Yes, I think Socrates killed quite a few parties with his methods. That's right. All right. So last is my own kind of recommendations and guidelines for how to do this well, um, as a teacher. And again, I, I don't hold an advanced teaching degree. I'm not a PhD. This is just coming from anyone. Screw it. It's just coming from 15 years of experience doing this. Uh, and many, well, how many times teacher of the year? I mean, you're once, one time you're underselling yourself for, um, you're held in high regard here. So yeah, but it's just 15 years of experience. Many of those years I was not good at it. So this is sort of my guidelines for how to do this well as a teacher. So I don't think it's a guide on the side or a sage on the stage. So you're not lecturing, and you can't fully remove yourself from the conversation because kids are kind of bad at it. I think the older they get, the more you can. Like seniors can usually do this pretty well. Freshmen can't. Um, so you, you're like a mostly guide on the side, but you've got to jump in sometimes and push when somebody makes an assumption that everybody accepts or when there is a time when they've devolved into just a hollering match and you need to rescue them. So thing number two, don't be afraid to jump on something interesting. Someone will make a claim and something all the other students accept, but that isn't a claim that can be made and you can push on that. And so that's what you do. You push, but you push only on the kids that can handle it. There are some kids that will go toe to toe with you and try to answer questions and can deal with some probing. There are kids that will instantly crumble the minute you talk to them in class. You got to know which kid this is. And if you have a crumbler, somebody who's just going to fall to pieces, but they say something interesting, one way to push without embarrassing that kid is you open up the question to the class rather than asking them directly to define it. So if they say, yeah, this is like, this is what goodness is. You can say, okay, does everyone agree? What about this? And then you open it up to the class and that kid doesn't have to answer for it. But I really prefer asking the kid directly if you can. Try to stay with one kid and make them defend it. And then eventually they'll find a place where they can't. And then somebody else will chime in. But if they're going to crumble, you can always open it up to the table. That's an easy way to prevent, you know, tears and the murder option. Keep an eye out for assumptions that they happen all the time. One thing I try not to do is play the guess what's in my head game. My teachers did this a lot when I was young. They'd be like, they would ask what was seemingly an easy question. Like, what's a rule? And everyone's like, it's something we're not supposed to do. We all know this. Everybody in the room knows exactly what it is, but no one's afraid, everyone's afraid to answer because if you answer and he's like, no, it's this, that you're just gonna look like an idiot, right? Especially because it's a simple question. I hated those. Socrates did it when he asked super leading questions, right? Those guys looked like fools. I don't play that game as a teacher. I will, you know, ask if anybody knows the definition to a word and if they're close, I'll give it to them. But I don't like the guess what's in my head. And I try to steer clear from that if I can in Harkness, unless I'm getting somewhere big. And if I am, I'll give them clues and help them discover it by themselves. But I don't play the ask really easy questions just to make sure they answer. That's a kind of Socratic dialogue that I'm not a fan of. And I think students hate too, because they're afraid to answer simple questions because they'll look like an idiot. So I avoid it. Socrates always followed the conversation wherever it ran, but he was dealing with smart people and adults. You can't always do that with kids. I one time had a Harkness conversation that ended with one kid hollering at another about whether it was Egyptian grass or Babylonian grass that we were talking about. We were so far afield that no one was, no one was making any headway anywhere. So you gotta be like, okay, stop. Let's go back to 10 minutes before where something interesting was said. Stop hollering at each other. We're not talking about politics. Let's do this other thing. But you can wait for the kids to do this. Sometimes they'll say, sometimes you get a kid that's like, I don't know what we're talking about. Can we go back? And you won't have to do it, but let them do it as much as they can. Pivot to a lecture if you need. You might lose a participation grade, but like I said, sometimes you just have to step in and save them. You may not always get to the place you want, but you will get someplace useful, which means that you need to be humble. You might think you have an answer, but if a kid asks a good question, you might not. Like that story about what I did in the first day. I had to change my definition. I had to discover the real thing. So you as a teacher might have to be humble too when you get to the idiot phase and you can't defend your position. That's okay. Let them struggle sometimes. Silence is okay. I think one of the biggest things I do is if I do push on a kid and ask them questions in class and go toe to toe with them, that's terrifying. I've got what, 35 years, no, 25 years on these kids of experience. I've studied, I've been to college, I've learned my material inside and out. So that's, that's gotta be a terrifying thing for them going up against somebody so much older with so much more experience and cleverness. What I do is, if I do that to a kid, I hold them back after class and I say, thank you. That was really brave. I know that was scary. You did a fantastic job. Even though I pushed on some definitions, you held your own, and that's really scary. Nice job. Then I might give them a couple extra points and then send them off. That will change their whole day. There's a night and day difference between that and then pushing and then making them look like an idiot and then sending them out of class. One ends in somebody who's really encouraged and the other ends in a cynic. So I will hold kids back and tell them thank you. One thing you can always do is if you don't know the answer and you need time to look it up, you can say, okay, we've come to a really interesting impasse. Time for a writing response. Turn it in next time. We'll talk about it again. That gives you a couple of days to look up an answer so that you can address it in a lecture later. And those are my how to do it well. So I guess in conclusion, in the Socratic method, there's not a whole lot of specific prescriptions other than like find assumptions, push on those until you get somewhere useful or not. And if you don't, there's a few ways to go about it, but be ready to pivot to pointing to mythos, like show them example or give them a good answer or make them think. And you can make them think and come back a couple of days later. And some questions are okay to leave mystery in. And that's what encourages a scholar. Some are not, and you're going to have to use your own wisdom on that. But this is what I could find about Socratic dialogue that was even halfway useful. So take from it what you will. The Socratic method is great. I seem to think what it means is just like intellectual conversation, but as a teacher, you have to be kind of tender with it because you can make your kids really embarrassed. So you just have to be careful. Okay. That was my presentation. Yeah. Can I ask? So yeah. Thoughts, boys.