I'm guessing you got downvoted because people tend to be attached to the Socratic method. There's a fairly narrow scope where it is a good idea - particularly when there's an understanding on both sides of mentor/mentee. In other cases, it sometimes works, and sometimes goes south.

I've noticed that it's fairly common for people to resent the Socratic approach being used on them. Probably they think that you're assuming a teacher/mentor role (and this may not be your intention), and they want to keep it as a "colleague" role.

Whatever people's intentions/interpretations, the Socratic method backfires a lot. Every one I know at work who is heavy on it has a number of colleagues who refer to him as "arrogant" behind his back. I remember the first time this happened, I was quite taken aback because I knew the person quite well, and he was anything but arrogant. But by using the Socratic method, people felt he was assuming a superior role.

I'll add that there's a whole other dimension to this. People often ask leading questions with the Socratic approach. For the vast majority of folks, their experience with leading questions involves either:

1. A trap

2. Someone who wants to tell them something but insists on doing it via questions.

3. Both

An example of 2 above is when A (e.g. a manager) is upset at B (an employee), but won't go into the details, but instead keeps asking "You did X. What do you think person Y thinks of this?" and a lot of "Why" questions. In practice, this has a high failure rate: B is often annoyed, and A failed to adequately express the problem.

I've been guilty of doing this, and I've often had people tell me after I ask a question "It sounds like you have something on your mind. Why don't you express it?" Less polite people (including me) have said "I'm interested in a dialogue, not a one-way set of questions. I have better things to do than answer questions. If you have something to say, I suggest you start saying it. "

Communications and negotiations books universally tell you not to ask leading questions. Ask questions only for clarification or out of genuine curiosity. For everything else, express concerns openly - don't ask questions.

Anyway - the point of this side note is: Often when people use the Socratic method, they use leading questions.

> I've noticed that it's fairly common for people to resent the Socratic approach being used on them. Probably they think that you're assuming a teacher/mentor role (and this may not be your intention), and they want to keep it as a "colleague" role.

It is not just that. It is fundamentally asymmetric style of communication. One person is forced to defend every tiny point, the other person does not have to defend anything. It is much easier to ask questions then to answer them. No matter how much you know, I will be able to reach borders of your knowledge.

In negotiation or causual debate situation, people quickly realize that your communication style is putting them at disadvantage and act to prevent that. Imagine we are discussing whether to go with my idea A or your idea B. You ask all questions, I am expected to answer them, and there is no place for your idea to be questioned too. The typical end result is that faults of my idea are presented, faults of yours are not, so you win.

Of course there are ways to counteract that, but people will still perceive you as hostile/unfair rather then cooperative. Because they had to use verbal wrestling.

> It is fundamentally asymmetric style of communication. One person is forced to defend every tiny point, the other person does not have to defend anything.

That is often how people use the Socratic approach today, but it is not fundamental to it. One can make it two sided, with both sides participating and asking/answering questions.

> It is much easier to ask questions then to answer them.

Indeed. I've at least once told the other person that it takes almost no cognitive load to ask a question, but plenty to come up with a meaningful answer, and that I was done answering his questions unless he brought something to the table.

Now if the questioner is indeed trying the Socratic approach, he probably is putting quite a bit of thought into his questions. But for the recipient, it is hard to tell if he is or isn't. Furthermore, asking questions is a tactic used by people to confuse others, so the questioner can't tell if you're being sincere with your queries or not (hence why people say "Don't answer my question with another.")

> Of course there are ways to counteract that, but people will still perceive you as hostile/unfair rather then cooperative.

I mentioned a way in another comment: "It sounds like you have concerns with my approach. I'd like to hear those concerns." For most sincere people, this is enough. If they keep asking questions, I switch to responding with further questions: "Would that not mean that if you do X, then Y will result?" to which my response would be "Would it?" or "Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?" or even "I'm not sure. Can you explain why that is a concern?" If they answer, then I get to respond by questioning them.

> I'm guessing you got downvoted because people tend to be attached to the Socratic method

Would be pretty ironic for people to be reflexively downvoting things they disagree with, in the same of the socratic method.

This is a shame to hear. I like the Socratic method and think it's the quickest way to get on the same page with someone.

I also don't see any problems with someone probing what I'm doing. How can they help if they don't understand what I'm trying to achieve?

Communication is hard.

The Socratic approach is not flawed in and of itself, and works great assuming both parties share a common understanding on the purpose of the conversation. Often, that is not the case.

It's also great amongst equals, where both parties are trying to learn from the other. But this is not the scenario here.

There’s a time and a place. I love the socratic method and use it often.

But when production is on fire, put out the fire first, then go into a series of probing questions about how fires happen.

Some people are anti-intellectual or are fearful and defensive at appearing less competent, perhaps out of fear that they will lose status or their job

>I've noticed that it's fairly common for people to resent the Socratic approach being used on them Socrates famously got sentenced to death for being too obnoxious, after all

It is tad more complicated then that. It was not just being obnoxious, it had to do with politics and previous bloody dictatorships by his students.

It was miscarriage of justice using pretext. But the core reason was not pure obnoxiousness.

Usually the people answering this way don't know how to fix the problem being asked, they know something that upon first reading looks sort of similar and they want to look smart so they shout "xy problem". This is part of why this behaviour is so infuriating - it's usually the low quality responders who act this way, but there are so many of them that they drown out the high quality ones. Yes I'm bitter about SO - first they replaced single purpose mailing lists, and then they went low quality, sort of like a big box store first driving out the mom and pop stores and then replace everything with plastic low quality merchandise.

Answering the question first typically takes a nontrivial amount of effort.

> Don’t do Socratic methods when there’s an emergency or the person is stressed about a deadline.

This was a good lesson for me to learn when I was at the receiving end of it. It’s like I’m asking for how to get the production service back up and someone is teaching about postmortem.

Separate out the immediate fix from the longer term solutions. And don’t intervene if you don’t know the answer to the exact question. You will muddle the discussion than being helpful.