> 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.
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.