Socratic Seminars

Post Reply New Topic

In my 9th grade English class, we've started doing Socratic Seminars. The entire 20-person class is supposed to have a conversation about the book we've been reading. Participation is a test grade. Before starting, we all wrote down 2 questions about the book, and when one topic was exhausted we moved on.
My problem is that you're not allowed to raise your hand in Socratic Seminars, since the conversation is supposed to flow naturally. And there never seems to be more than a quarter-second between one NT finishing and another beginning. See, I know three ways to interrupt: raise my hand and wait for acknowledgment (not allowed), wait for a lull (nonexistent), or be among friends where I feel comfortable interrupting (only one friend in the class). None of them work in this situation, so I end up either unable to say anything and get my participation points or "um"-ing while an NT confidently talks over me (since I can't be sure that someone's done, I'm cautious, while they're always certain that the other's done). They seem to have some sort of hive mind.
So, how can I navigate these? Any advice?

Forget this "hive-mind" thing!

Yes, NT's tend to like to form cliques and all that--but it's not purely a "hive-mind" type of thing which deliberately excludes Aspies/autistics.

I would get myself in "react" mode. Do you have a feeling about what the other person said? Do you feel strongly about it?

During the time when you're listening to the previous person, try to formulate your thoughts on the matter at hand. Think about how you would rebut the person--but don't be rough about it--be Socratic about it.

My personal opinion is that this is good training which will enable you to have intelligent discussions as an adult, rather than merely rant about your opinions.

Oh, I know that! I don't think they're trying to exclude me. But they all seem to know exactly when someone's going to stop talking, and whether someone else is about to talk, and there's never a break or lull, and it seems like a hive mind to me. It's not that I feel excluded, it's that every way I know how to interrupt is ineffective and I don't know how to jump in. It's me, not them, and I know that. And, y'know, there are 20 people involved. But thank you!

These discussions are horrible.
I remember that we have small group discussions like this in high school english, like 5 people.
The whole class would be even worse.
I learn nothing at all from this crap.

Think of your response beforehand, and the first few words that you are going to use in it. Watch the person talking and as soon as they seem to be finished, or at the end of a though and take a breath, speak up, a bit louder than normally for the first few words and keep talking until you finish your thought. Sometimes people will try to interrupt but you can hold up a finger at them to wait (first finger only lol) and keep talking over them.

Since it's a Socratic seminar I don't suppose you could opt out of it. WIthout the hemlock that is.

Thanks. I've tried to predict when someone will finish talking, but I can never seem to, while the NTs do it confidently. I can try, though.
My IEP has provisions for group work that I could use, and my teacher's created the stopgap measure of me writing down responses and getting points for them. But I do want to try to handle these, especially since I'm told they're frequent in 10th grade.

You have to fake the confidence in speaking, until you actually start feeling it. Once you pull it off a few times you'll start feeling some of it.

I normally hate to be interrupted and I don't stop talking when somebody interrupts me. I look at them and say "Excuse me for talking while you were interrupting" and then continue with what I was saying.

Law school does this. We were expected to raise hands...the professor "moderated" by acknowledging who could speak next.

That would've been a huge help. In ours the teacher did nothing but moderate interruptions, and we weren't allowed to raise our hands for some reason.

Similar concept here is called a "fishbowl". Half of the class sits in a circle and talks about the book, the other half sits and listens quietly. Not extremely hard for me but I get sick and tired of counting "likes" from all of the vocal fry talk the other NTs do. There's a girl in my class who once said "like" about 15 times when she raised her hand. Can you say..."lack of vocabulary?" Almost never do I go vocal fry on someone. I talk a bit here and there, but I try not to control the whole fishbowl...which costs me points. 10th graders also do this concept as well.

I was also introduced to "Socratic Seminars" in 9th grade at SCA (my highschool). They tend to be failed attempts at actually being Socratic... but they are survivable.
Hmm... navigation...

1. Confront the instructor/moderator on this... You should be allowed to raise your hand anyway. If you are having trouble being recognized. The instructor/moderator should recognize your hand and give you the floor. The instructor is failing otherwise.

2. Memorize a few general questions.
-Do you believe that just because (Insert Authority Figure) did?
-How do you know that to be true?
-What evidence do you have to support your claims?
-How did you come to that conclusion?

Honestly, many of these questions will be effective even if you have no idea what is going on in the conversation. There are a lot more that could be added to this list.

3. Memorize shocking/provocative quotes.
- The Socratic method is entirely question based. Demagogs don't help the seminar any. The moderator/instructor should break up cliches... (which doesn't seem to be happening ). So, to solve that problem, you should resort to provocative, shocking questions that question the basis of their view of reality. That means playing the devil's advocate. If you clash with their ethical values... especially if you do so by only using questions, you win. It's what Socrates did. I should note that these quotes don't have to align with your own beliefs.
Staying on the question side of the discussion keeps everyone else on the defensive and makes everything a lot easier for you.
The shocking/provocative quotes can be recalled and reformatted into a question that stir up conversation. Or they can be used as evidence to defend yourself.

4. ... the hardest part. Blurt it out. Have what you want to say in front of you and blurt it out. Say it loudly. You need to steal attention. This may seem impossible and maybe it is... but you need to attempt it. If you are in the same situation I was in, your grade depends on it. Being rude is fine. If the instructor refuses to moderate, you need to be rude if you have to.

Right. Thanks. I'll try to blurt more. Might use the Newspaper Protocol. Thanks.

If the teacher knows you're on the spectrum, they should have no problem if you ask if you can at least START the discussion so that you have at least one chance to participate...

Yeah, I know it isn't what you want to hear... but memorizing prewritten phrases helps. It isn't a pleasant scenario and there isn't much you can do about it though...

I hope you start to have faith in Socratic Seminars.

It might be difficult now--but it will teach you lots that you could use in the future.

It's an introduction to how intelligent people should conduct themselves when they are debating something.

Yeah, I hate it when they do that too. They kept doing that to me in the jury room.Loudly talk over them. Not over their whole sentance but just their first two syllables. They'll stop after half a second.

I know you don't like this but ultimately it will be good for you to learn to deal with something you're not yet good at. In my experience we learn the most when we're outside of our comfort zones.