Phil Fernbach

When people are challenged on their knowledge, they may become defensive.

And the goal of a dialogue is not to make someone feel stupid or ignorant.

So I think that the key when engaging in this kind of dialogue, which I do think can be very productive, is to set some ground rules first.

The idea is...

I'm not trying to grill you to show that you don't know what you're talking about.

But I'm acknowledging that I don't know what I'm talking about either.

And we're going to work together to interrogate both sides.

We're going to interrogate both positions.

And then I think both people are in equal footing.

And that can be a very productive discourse.

I think Rob's insight is exactly right, that if the dialogue is one person interrogating the other and trying to make them feel stupid, you're not going to get anywhere.

That's right.

The Socratic method implies that you have a teacher and a student, and the teacher knows the answer and is helping the student to come to their own realization of the answer.

In a typical discourse around some public policy issue, both interlocutors aren't going to

have all the answers.

And so the goal should be a little bit different.

So it shouldn't really be a guided interrogation like a Socratic kind of approach where one person is leading.

I think it should be more of a joyful approach where both are conversing in this more open-minded questioning way.

I think to me that would be more helpful.

Yeah, Kate raises another really interesting point, which is facts are another place where the world is a lot more complicated than we often give it credit for.