The term “communication skills” is a misnomer because its definition has little to do with communication. It doesn’t mean that people have forgotten how to speak and need coaching to relearn it; nor that people are unable to articulate their thoughts and need training to put them into sentences.
Communication skills, as a science, has more to do with assertiveness training than with vocalisation of one’s thoughts. It is also closely related to diplomacy and salesmanship.
Instead of saying “you are not making any sense,” students are taught to say “I do not quite understand what you mean.” In a similar manner, instead of saying “you should purchase my product,” students are taught to say “my product will benefit you in the following five ways.”
I find it comical to hear that the Socratic method can help us improve our communication skills because Socrates would not have approved of assertiveness training, melliferous diplomacy and manipulative salesmanship.
Am I using a biased definition of communication skills? Is it not true that assertiveness, diplomacy and salesmanship play a crucial role in civilised society? Am I distorting the teachings of Socrates due to my personal prejudices?
Those questions are fair and relevant. I have absolutely no problem with sales people being assertive, diplomatic and fully committed to succeed in business, but I draw the line at telling lies. I draw the line at having facts misrepresented for the sake of short-term profits or career advancement.
Socrates’ moral values
In most of his works, Plato (427-347 BC) assigned Socrates the principal role. He turned Socrates into the speaker for truth, consistency and honesty. He depicted him as a crusader against prejudice, ignorance and poor logic.
In this context, it is hard to imagine Socrates employing his “communication skills” to praise the wool from his sheep in excess to sell it at a higher price, or using sweet words to ingratiate himself with powerful people, or exaggerating his own virtues to obtain some kind of benefit.
Socrates would have refrained from performing actions that push the envelope even one millimetre beyond the truth; he did not believe in sugar-coating the truth, as illustrated in “Meno” and “Euthyphro.”
According to Plato’s and Thucydides’ depictions, Socrates preferred to describe things as they are. He regarded the risk of annoying his interlocutors as part of the cost of truth seeking.
If directness and abruptness meant having fewer friends and making some enemies, Socrates accepted the consequences; he chose his words on the basis of realism and truthfulness, not on the basis of cost-benefit calculations.
Socrates ended up underestimating the cost of sincerity and candidness. At some point, his remarks had seriously annoyed Meletus and Anytus. Socrates had not given it further thought, but when the occasion presented itself, Meletus and Anytus did everything they could to have Socrates sentenced to death.
Both of them acted as prosecutors in the criminal trial held in Athens against Socrates in the year 400 BC. Their speeches twisted the facts to make Socrates look evil and drive the jury towards imposing the death penalty.
Diplomacy and sugar-coating
In his defence during the criminal trial, Socrates showed zero communication skills in the modern sense, that is, he did not go to great lengths to ingratiate himself with the jury, nor did he express himself carefully and diplomatically.
Instead, he stated his achievements objectively, quoting the relevant facts and witnesses, and simply told the jury that they should regard him as a great man, not as a criminal. I do agree with the statement that Socrates was a great man, but this does not mean that his defence in the trial was effective.
If Socrates had employed modern communication skills, he might have avoided the death sentence. He may have walked free from the trial, for all I know.
Nonetheless, his philosophy would not allow him to employ manipulative language, exaggerate the facts in his favour, or deny the little evidence that existed against him.
Although the historical Socrates was against all manners of manipulative language or sugar-coating, some people still rate his communications skills as excellent. They view his method of questioning as the basis of modern communication science, and his debates worth studying for learning to speak in public.
Why do today’s communication scientists hold Socrates in such a high regard? Because they look only at the structure and rhythm of Socrates’ debates, not at their dire consequences.
I fail to see how communication professors could get any students if they started their courses by saying “Socrates was a great communicator, but be careful because, if you imitate his debating methods, you may end up in the death row.”
Two strategies
What about the two salient features of Socrates’ debating style? Do they not denote mastery in communication skills? Is it not good practice to learn those two strategies and use them at every opportunity?
I am referring, on the one hand, to playing dumb and letting one’s opponent speak at length, hoping that he will put his foot in his mouth; and on the other hand, asking him questions to identify and magnify any weakness in his arguments.
Plato’s works illustrate those two skills repeatedly. Socrates employed them to discuss the meaning of ethics in general, the definition of courage in particular, the optimal type of societal organisation, or the human method for acquiring knowledge.
Those two Socratic techniques can prove useful to defence attorneys in criminal trials when they lack counterevidence. If they possess zero evidence to sustain an exculpating narrative, they can only hope that the prosecutor makes a mistake.
In those cases, it might work for the defence to play dumb and let the prosecutor speak at length, hoping that he incurs some contradition, which the defence attorney could magnify by asking sharp questions.
If the ploy works, that is, if the prosecutor puts the foot in his mouth and incurs some contradiction, the defence attorney might still carry the day.
Nevertheless, I must hasten to add that this strategy should normally fail. If the prosecutor possesses average skills, he will not make a fool of himself in front of the jury. He will not tell a story containing gaps or contradictions that the defence can exploit by employing the Socratic questioning technique.
Thus, the Socratic method possesses limited applicability in today’s context and we should not consider Socrates as the epithome of a great communicator.
I have not mentioned the case of comparative advertising, in which a company will directly compare its products with those of a competitor. For instance, by saying that his produce costs five per cent less, or that the delivery is twenty per cent fast.
Due to the high potential for litigiosity, few companies use comparative advertising nowadays. A ten-second commercial might compare one or two factors and claim that a particular service is faster or cheaper than someone else’s, but what about the other relevant factors not mentioned in the commercial?
Few companies can claim that their products are absolutely superior to the competitors’ products. If competitors initiate a legal action for misleading advertising, the risks and costs may easily exceed the profits generated by the commercial. It is not the kind of game that companies like to play.
Socrates possessed great skills at attacking weak, poorly-constructed statements. He had an uncanny ability for detecting gaps, mistakes, and inconsistencies in his opponents’ arguments, but when it comes to modern communication skills, I am afraid that much more is needed.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all kinds of situations, I recommend my book “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”