Want to recap to this point? We've refused to argue by yielding. We can only yield after we've learned what the other person actually thinks and why they think that and that requires us to ask questions. And this is why this is called Socratic jujitsu. Do not assume you know what the other person is thinking based on their opinion about a public policy issue. If you do, you will end up arguing a straw man.

And I've seen lots of people who claim to be free thinkers doing exactly that. To learn what someone actually thinks you have to ask them questions. Don't assume you know what's motivating them. That's the straw man and find out what they really think first, that's what critical thinking is about by having yielded. Once you've done that, and you found out what they're really thinking and what their real motivations are, and you found that point of agreement that you have with them. You can yield that point and reframe the conversation based on the moral framework your opponent actually holds, that you found out that they actually hold by asking them questions as opposed to framing your conversation on what you think they think, which they don't really think, right?

That doesn't work. So you actually have to ask some questions, find out what they actually think. And find out where you agree with them. And then reframe the conversation on the agreement that you have. Why do they think this particular thing is important? What is the morality behind their thinking?

And what is it you hope ideally comes out of any policy proposal? we've accepted the moral premise, what it is they want to accomplish and why they want to accomplish it as morally good. Now, so far, it seems like the other person's winning right or wrong, all we've done to this point is figure out what they want to accomplish and why why they want to accomplish it. morality as the next step is to engage in further Socratic questioning. But now instead of finding out what it is they want to accomplish and why our questioning is now going to geared geared towards collaborative problem solving, how are we actually going to solve the problem they themselves have put forth. All right.

We're gonna collaboratively solve that with them as they have prevented it and help them figure out a solution that might actually solve the problem in a way we all can agree on. When you focus your conversation on how solutions can actually be implemented, an interesting thing happens. The conversation stops being in competition, and it starts being in collaboration. All right. And to do this, well, you have to be Socratic. You have to get yourself out of the way and let the other person do the thinking and the reasoning.

Don't steal that from them. don't rob them of that by forcing your ideas. You want them to think If there is a flaw in that reasoning, it will be uncovered through your questioning, they will discover it if you ask some questions. And that's what you want for them to discover the problems that they have with their own line of reasoning. telling them they have a problem doesn't help them really get that that puts them competitive, letting them find out they have a problem on their own, is going to have a much easier impact. Now, I always enter these conversations with a goal to learn.

Maybe they know something I don't know. So I try to find out what are they talking about? You know, I have a lot of friends who think Obama lies all the time, like, Okay, he's breaking the Constitution. How exactly what exactly are you talking about? I don't know. I legitimately don't know.

So tell me if they stayed a false hood, or something I think is false. I noted and I say I don't think that's true. But go on. Let's assume it is for the time being. I know my objection. But I don't let it get in the way of their explanation of what they think is going on.

Usually what happens is They're so stuck in arguing on behalf of their moral framework that they've never bothered to think through the consequences of their proposal in the real world, like their knowledge is shallow. Your goal is to ask them how ask them to describe how their proposals work or don't work in the real world and how their proposals accomplish their state of objective or in some cases don't that's sometimes what you find is their proposal doesn't actually solve the problem they think needs to be solved. This is when you can start suggesting alternatives or challenging their assumed knowledge anytime you say I don't think that's true, or that isn't true, but go on. you've planted a seed of doubt. And they will often ask you Well, why isn't that true? Like what do you know that?

I don't know? That's, that's the collaborative nature of these things. When they start asking you when you say, Well, I don't think that works. There's studies that say it doesn't work. So you know, I'm not really convinced you What about this way, and that's when you can start introducing alternatives to what their assumed proposal was, what happens is people assume if their premises are true that their conclusion is true, that their proposal is good. And that's not the case, there might be a bunch of different proposals and possible solutions that they never even considered.

And once you get to that point, you can start saying, Well, why is your way better than doing this? You know, you want to do X, I think y is the better option. Why? Explain to me why you think y x is better than why and if they haven't even considered why they can't do it. And then they have to learn about it to be able to do that. Most people assume their moral framework is correct, their proposed solution must also be correct.

We all do this. You do this. So when you are challenging someone, be humble because you could be wrong. When you expect Their moral framework, you can now explore whether or not their proposed solution to the various problems is a good one or not. Or whether it's even the best one, maybe there's a better one. You can also help them explore the unintended consequences of that their proposal might cause.

For instance, with the death penalty, we might ask whether or not life imprisonment without parole is a valid option. Why or why not? Why do they want the death penalty more than they want? life without parole? Which one is cheaper? Which is more moral?

What are the different ways we might keep someone from killing again? Like we've got someone convicted of a crime? How do we prevent them from killing again? What are all the different ways we might deter potential killers? What does science say works and what doesn't? Right?

These are all really good questions. What happens when you ask these questions is that you're able to challenge the other person's reasoning without them realizing that they're being challenged because you've agreed with them. You're not debating them. You've already agreed with what they think should happen. You're at asking them to pontificate and to share their ideas while you consider whether they're valid or not. And you're introducing alternatives and doubt well in that process, not because you're challenging them.

But that's just what happens when if someone thinks the death penalty is the only option. And they're then introduced to five or six other options. it'll expand the reason they're thinking. You can ask them to consider alternative proposals and weigh them against their preferred proposal. This, this, this was I can guarantee you that's not something they would have been willing to do if you argue the premise. Right?

But they're willing to do it. If they're not arguing their premise. They're now trying to figure out how best to solve their problem. All right, they don't have to defend their moral framework anymore. So they're free to consider the alternatives now, and that's something they weren't free to do before. And you rather than being an antagonist, or simply helping them solve their problem effectively, all right, that's what you should be trying to do their ways One day, it might not be the best way and as long as they're arguing about their morals, framework, they're not in a position to consider alternatives.

Just the fact of matter. That's why we'll Let's try another example of how we might collaboratively problem solve. Let's talk about SeaWorld and the captive Orca population. There are arguments that are being made that keeping orcas are cruel. Okay, fine. I accept that.

What should we do about that? Should we release them? Well, there haven't been any successful releases. And no reputable expert on marine mammal suggests doing that the best funded attempt ran out of money and the animals starve to death. No one who's read the reports on attempted releases would ever suggest doing that. So that doesn't work.

And only it would actually be more humane to euthanize the animals. All right. I actually have deep knowledge on this. Maybe we could keep them from breeding so that the population dies out well, exactly. How are you planning to keep hoarding marine mammals from having sex with one another Gonna keep the mail separate from the female, so that doesn't happen until they all die. These animals live for decades, that seems a bit cruel sex is necessary for mental health.

Withholding it from otherwise healthy animals has adverse health consequences to the animals. And again, people who have a shallow understanding of this issue don't consider sex. The A lot of people don't think of captive animals as having a sex drive. I'm not sure why but they don't. They think it's like they're forced to have sex to breed. That's not actually what happens.

They're mammals. They like to have sex, and babies come from having sex. So you know, that's the reality. Don't have them on display. Okay, well, how are you going to pay to keep them how are you going to get the money to feed them and care for them adequately? Like I said, you know, the previous attempts at not displaying them and getting them ready for release failed and he they ran out of money and the animals ended up starving despite the good intentions of the people running the project.

The four Profit model. You know, I'm not going to tell you it's a good one. What I'm going to tell you is it ensures that they have medical care and food and enrichment activities and that they stay sane, relatively speaking, given the constraints of captivity. The cost of maintaining these animals is astronomical and nonprofit attempts to keep them while we well meaning have failed to generate the funds needed to maintain these animals and keep them alive. So again, I'm not arguing the point about whether or not keeping orcas is cruel. I've accepted that I accept the moral promise.

But the questions I have have to do with how exactly we solved the problem and introducing reality into that conversation. Rather than arguing the premise, no, we should definitely keep these animals in captivity. That's not something I actually think. But we have a problem and we don't have a good solution to it. So I'm willing to listen to someone who has those conversations. Let's give another example.

Right? So my conversations are not about whether or not keeping orcas cruel. That's the moral framework. I agree with that question is how best do we deal with that? Another example welfare. Let's accept the premise giving handouts to lazy people with a bad I could argue that lazy welfare people on welfare aren't lazy, but let's conditionally accept the premise and yield that point.

All right, what about people who lose their job due to a layoff? Should they not get welfare? If someone is sick and has no money and goes to the hospital? Should we refuse them service knowing that they will not? What about kids? If their parents don't have a job?

Should we allow the kids to starve? It's not their fault. Their parents don't have jobs and are lazy. When you ask Socratic questions, you yield, you accept the moral premise even if you don't agree with it. And there goals. And you try to figure out how, what they're saying works in the real world, not the idealized world because the proposed solution has to work in the real world.

And if they haven't thought it through, they're going to have to concede that point in this conversation. And if it turns out they don't have a good reason for the things they think and believe that's gonna become obvious to you don't have to openly challenge someone, you just have to ask them questions from their starting point, and help walk them through the problems and the difficulties of actually solving the problem they themselves say they want to solve. When it becomes obvious that the proposed solution isn't a very good one, that's when you start suggesting alternatives. That may work better. All right. And usually by this point, the person's more amenable sometimes they aren't like politics, people can be very, very entrenched.

And a single conversation is not going to help them but in the workplace. You're having this discussion about potential solutions to a problem in the workplace, you're probably going to get really good results. If you can first agree on what the problem is, and then have this conversation as a collaboration on how we best solve it rather than saying My way is right. Your Way is wrong. All right? That doesn't work.

When you're considering which solution is the best one, you're going to have a much better outcome. If you do this, well, if you ask questions well, and you introduce alternatives, well, you're probably going to end up agreeing on the basic principles on what ideally should happen, what a good solution looks like. And what could possibly be a good way to solve that problem, right? That's usually what happens. Now, assuming you've done your work beforehand, and assuming your positions are well grounded in reality, and you've done your research, and you're correct, then the other person should end up agreeing with you. If you haven't thought through your positions before doing this, you're going to learn something and Maybe change your own mind and be challenged as a result.

And that's actually also a win. If you find out you're wrong. That's actually a win if you can change your mind. Because you got to remember, especially in the workplace, when you're trying to solve problems, the goal is to solve the problem. The goal is not to win. The goal is to solve the problem if you solve the problem you want, right, that's, that's what you have to keep in mind to get your ego out of the way to do this.

All right, if the other person ends up agreeing with you, and your way really is better than you've won, if you find out you're wrong, and the other person's way of doing something is better. You've learned that and you now agree with them. You've also won because you've improved the likelihood that you're going to solve your problem. That's what winning is. Free Thought. The act of asking questions the act of challenging or on assumptions is an effective problem solving skill.

For this reason, this is why humanists encourage people to learn this skill. That's why I put this course together is to help people learn how to think think critically of themselves and to encourage it with other people. And it has to do with collaborative problem solving when we're convinced we're right. We're not problem solving. Every time you argued with you are not engaging or encouraging free thought. You're telling people to agree with you, and you're giving them reasons why.

That's not free thought. That's argument. Right? Free Thought is a personal practice in order to teach it, you have to encourage people to think if they just accept your thinking, they're not thinking for themselves, right. So if you want to encourage free thought, you first have to be civil, you have to be respectful and you have to model being willing to change your own mind and having your own thinking, challenge. That's how this works.

Right? This is what Free Thought is about. You model it and you have to be willing to have your mind changed. If you want others. people to find out how well this works. Don't do this to win.

Do this to learn, and to improve your own thinking and have your thinking challenged, and do it to model the skills. You're trying to teach other people. I don't ever engage in contentious conversations to me. I entered them. If I'm genuinely willing to learn. I enter them humbly.

And I know people probably argue with that. I may be wrong, but I mean, that's how I really think I might be wrong. And I'm willing to let this person Teach me. I'm wrong. If I'm engaging in conversation with you. And I'm engaging in a debate with you in a discussion with you.

It's because I actually want to learn if I, if I think I already know I'm not even bothered with it. Right. So if you've said something's contentious and stupid, and I know it's contentious and stupid, I'm going to let it go. Alright, but if I think I might be wrong, I'm going to enter into the conversation with you my willingness This to learn, I'm wrong, is the reason I almost always win these conversations and people end up agreeing with me. The other thing that happens is because I'm willing to learn and I am learning, my knowledge is not superficial. in a lot of areas, I have very deep knowledge.

And in several areas, I have superficial knowledge in some areas, but other issues, I have deep knowledge. And then the reason it's deep is because I've engaged in conversations to learn what I don't know. So that I can can have deep knowledge. If I don't have the knowledge, I'm willing to acknowledge the I didn't know that. That's like the most powerful thing you can say. So engage in collaborative problem solving, so that you can learn and if you've learned and the other person's learned, that's what winning is about.

If you're going to argue with him as make sure you have good factual reasons for holding your opinions, because we're going to challenge And we're going to challenge your ideas to see if they're valid not because we're trying to change your mind, but because we're trying to change our own. All right, we're trying to find out whether I, when I do this, I'm doing it to see if I need to change my mind to see if I'm wrong. We do this to improve our own thinking, not to win an argument. Every time we learn and improve our own thinking, we improve our arguments on our own moral reasoning improves, and we're going to be more sure of our conclusions. And we're going to be more and more or less resolved because the worst thing is to think you're right and end up being wrong and cause harm.

Don't ever assume you're right. Don't assume you know why the other person is thinks the way they do or they're holding the opinions the way they do. Don't assume they're evil, insane if they don't agree with you. That's like the most common fallacy if someone doesn't agree with us, they must be evil insane, because we're holding our opinions for moral reasons. And if they don't agree with our moral reasons, they must be evil insane, because this is about morality. It's always about morality.

Don't assume the other person is evil and saying as soon as you start thinking this person is evil, insane, your thing Ron, you're engaged in fallacious thinking, ask them questions and find out what they really think they could very well be evil, insane, but most people are not. Right. Most people are quite rational, ask them questions, find out. What you're going to find is that most people have not thought their ideas through. And it's going to be obvious when you start asking them questions. Right?

By questioning them. you encourage them to think telling them they're wrong, doesn't do anything productive except make you feel better and make you feel right. Right, asking them questions, to find out what they think helps them think because you're forcing them to think by asking questions that require them thing. If your thinking and their thinking has been challenged after discussion, that's winning. Thanks. Hope to see you on other programs.