Ask what a claim means, what supports it, and what would change the conclusion. Allow the other person to revise the premise; a useful question is not a trap.
When reviewing a proposal, ask which assumption carries the recommendation and what evidence would make the team choose differently.
How It Works
The technique follows a consistent pattern. You begin by asking your opponent to state their position clearly. Then you ask clarifying questions that seem neutral but are designed to elicit specific commitments. Each commitment constrains what the opponent can say next. Eventually, you present a question that reveals a direct conflict between two things they have already agreed to. At that point, they must either abandon their original claim or accept the contradiction.
The power of the approach lies in its indirection. Because you are not making assertions, your opponent has no target to attack. They cannot accuse you of being wrong when all you have done is ask questions. The burden of reconciling conflicting commitments falls entirely on them.
When to Use It
Socratic questioning is most effective against positions that rest on unexamined assumptions, which is to say, most positions. It works especially well in formal debates, cross-examinations, and any setting where the audience values intellectual rigor. Trial lawyers use it constantly during cross-examination. Skilled interviewers deploy it to expose inconsistencies in a subject's account without appearing adversarial.
The technique is less effective when the opponent is aware of it and refuses to engage with the questioning framework. It also requires patience; you cannot rush the sequence of questions without losing the appearance of genuine inquiry that makes the method credible.