Among the iconic figures who shaped the field of knowledge transmission, there is Socrates. A philosopher of Ancient Greece, born around 470 BCE, he left a timeless legacy by emphasizing the importance of questioning and critical reflection. His approach, known as the Socratic method, was based on dialogue. Concretely, Socrates relied on contradiction to guide members of his audience through a process of intellectual exploration. During public debates, he began by asking broad questions, engaging his audience in spontaneous reflection. The answers obtained, often intuitive and direct, then served as the starting point for discussion. Afterwards, Socrates revealed possible contradictions or gray areas in the arguments put forward. His objective? To invite his audience to reconsider their certainties, enable them to enrich their understanding of a given subject, and refine their ideas. At Seven and in the training field, we see this method as a source of inspiration for individual development. By revisiting the fundamentals of this approach, we believe it can be beneficial both for encouraging individuals’ curiosity, stimulating their critical thinking, and fostering lasting learning. How does the Socratic method adapt to the modern challenges of training? That is the question we are going to answer.

————

The art of dialogue

Dialogue occupies a central place in our lives, whether it is collaborating with colleagues, negotiating with partners, or talking with loved ones. It also appears in digital contexts, particularly on social media. However, to remain faithful to the Socratic method, we will focus on face-to-face interactions.

The three stages of dialogue according to Socrates

Socrates was one of the first to demonstrate how dialogue could become a powerful lever for learning and reflection. His method, still relevant today, was based on three major stages:

1. Ask an open question to elicit spontaneous responses

Socrates always began his exchanges with a broad and open question, often related to moral or ethical concepts. For example, he might begin the dialogue by asking his audience: “What is courage?” The first answers he received were often spontaneous, stemming from intuition or commonly accepted ideas, such as: “For me, courage is standing firm in battle and not fleeing.”

2. Highlight the limits of the initial responses

Socrates then pointed out the shortcomings or contradictions in the first responses shared by his audience, using precise questions. He invited his interlocutors to move beyond their initial certainties and mobilize their critical thinking. For example, when faced with an overly simplistic definition of courage, he might reply: “But then if someone rushes headlong into a battle they already know is lost, is that courage or simply recklessness?” A question that naturally encouraged his audience to think more deeply.

3. Exhortation, refutation, and maieutics

The final stage of the Socratic method unfolded in three successive phases:

• Exhortation: Confronted with the limits of their initial answers, participants could become aware of aspects to clarify in their reasoning.

• Refutation: Aware that their initial ideas were sometimes incomplete, they could then question their first arguments.

• Maieutics: Thanks to this process, they arrived at a richer and more nuanced understanding of a subject. This is the principle of maieutics, or “the art of giving birth to minds.”

If we return to the example of courage, after exploring the limits of the first definition, the interlocutor could conclude with: “Courage is actually the wisdom to discern when it is right to hold one’s position and when it is preferable to withdraw.”

Thus, the Socratic method shows that dialogue, when conducted well, goes beyond sharing thoughts and above all enables its participants to move beyond preconceived ideas to reach finer and more enlightened thinking.

The strengths of exchange in the 21st century

What also makes the Socratic method unique is its deliberate use of contradiction. No matter his audience’s initial answers, Socrates always found a way to reveal the limits of the arguments presented. If his interlocutor answered blue, he asked: “Why not red?”, and if the answer was red, he questioned: “Why not blue?”.

This type of contradictory dialogue echoes in daily life, especially during sometimes deep conversations with loved ones. Remember those moments when a simple question, asked kindly by a friend, a family member, or a trusted person, illuminated your thinking. Perhaps you found yourself thinking: “Yes, he’s right. I had never considered the situation from that angle.” Another person’s perspective can help you step back, broaden your horizons, and consider novel solutions. Of course, unlike Socrates, your loved ones generally do not seek to intentionally contradict you. Their approach is not calculated, but stems from a perspective different from your own. It is precisely this divergence of viewpoint that constitutes their greatest richness: others invite you to step outside your certainties and see beyond what you thought you knew.

The similarities between the Socratic method and current learning models

At Seven, we deeply believe in the power of dialogue and exchange to foster learning and individual progress. That is why we wanted to highlight the common points between the Socratic method and the pedagogical approach we deploy daily in the context of corporate training. We noticed two shared pillars: orality and the sharing of questions.

The importance of orality

Socrates placed speech at the heart of his method. He used public dialogue to stimulate his audience’s participation.

At Seven as well, oral expression plays an essential role. Indeed, in our training programs, we greatly value learner participation and invite them to share their reflections with others, whether during pair discussions, exchanges in small groups, or dialogues with an entire group. For speech to flow freely, we believe it is essential that a climate of trust be established beforehand. This is precisely the role of the training facilitator: ensuring a calm atmosphere is created, explaining to participants that all opinions can be shared provided they are not specifically aimed at disparaging a person.

As part of an exchange between several individuals, it is advisable that the organizer (e.g., the trainer) reminds everyone of the fundamentals of respectful listening, namely: waiting for the other person to finish their explanation before speaking, accepting that a different point of view may be expressed, and asking questions that move the dialogue forward. In addition to discovering directions sometimes different from their own, group exchanges allow individuals to confront their own ideas and sometimes hear arguments that strengthen or inform their opinions.

One could imagine a training session aimed at strengthening managerial skills, with a trainer asking the following question as an introduction: “So, in your opinion, what are the essential qualities of a good manager?” Léo, a participant, might speak first and answer: “A good manager must be humane and show empathy to understand and support their teams.” At that moment, Emma, another participant, might intervene and argue: “I disagree. Being too empathetic can lead to a lack of objectivity. A manager must sometimes detach from their emotions to make fair decisions in the interest of the collective.” Thanks to Emma, Léo might reconsider his position, enrich his reasoning, and refine his own viewpoint. As for the other group members, by listening to Emma’s and Léo’s views, they might nuance the points already stated or propose concrete examples supporting Emma’s or Léo’s statements.

Sharing questions rather than certainties

The Socratic method is also powerful because it does not guide interlocutors toward a predefined answer. Socrates’ role was somewhat like that of a guide. He asked his audience questions to nourish their reflection and stimulate their critical thinking. In this sense, impactful learning today is, in our view, learning that adopts a similar philosophy, based on sharing questions rather than assertions. In training, we see competent trainers as facilitators, transmitters of knowledge, people capable of offering participants tools to deepen their reflections. While they come to share their expertise, their goal remains above all to transmit a way of thinking, a framework for action. Participants then remain free to forge their own conclusions and identify the actions that seem most appropriate to them. It is also the trainer’s responsibility to ensure balanced speaking time among all participants so that none feels disadvantaged.

Let us return to the example of training aimed at strengthening managerial skills. The facilitator could ask the group an open question such as “What actions, in your opinion, can enable a manager to have a positive impact on their team and on the objectives to be achieved?” After gathering participants’ viewpoints, they would not try to support a fixed and irrefutable assertion, “A good manager must always listen to their team members.” On the contrary, they would rather seek to nuance: “One action that can, in certain contexts, help a manager strengthen team cohesion is to actively listen to feedback from their team members.”

Adapting Socrates’ dialogue for effective transmission

Although Socrates’ method remains a timeless source of inspiration, transmitting knowledge and supporting individual development today requires taking other factors into account, which were little developed or not developed at all by the Greek philosopher.

Accessibility of knowledge

Socrates used to conduct his dialogues in Athens’ public spaces. His interlocutors were therefore mainly from privileged or influential backgrounds. Yet today, and even more so with the advent of the internet, transmitting means accepting that knowledge should be accessible to all.

When a diversity of people gains access to knowledge, everyone can progress personally, but also actively contribute to collective development. For individuals, access to learning makes it possible to acquire concrete tools to better understand their environment, make informed decisions, and adapt to a constantly changing world. And on a societal level, guaranteeing access to knowledge for all encourages the emergence of new ideas, fosters collaboration between different groups, and helps address complex challenges.

An ally for initiating exchanges with colleagues

Users of “Moving Motivators” are led to rank their motivations by order of importance according to themselves. Only the person concerned can truly say what boosts them, even if it does not come naturally to them. This ranking helps working people better understand the reasons behind their actions and thoughts, but also share them with colleagues, fostering better mutual understanding within the team. By analyzing how each of the 10 motivations is stimulated in specific contexts, individuals can identify situations where certain motivations are particularly activated and moments when they are less so. Then, they can and are strongly encouraged to share their feelings precisely with their team.

In practice, applying “Moving Motivators” takes place in two stages. First, the user arranges their 10 motivations on a horizontal line according to the impact each one has on them. The motivations placed on the left have a strong impact on the person. During the second phase, the user thinks of a specific situation and evaluates how each motivation is stimulated. If a motivation is highly activated, the card is raised vertically; if it is less activated, the card is lowered. This analysis makes it possible to visualize potential gaps between one’s motivations and one’s completed actions, and thus trigger awareness among colleagues. Imbalances can then lead to adjustment proposals from the person concerned or from their collaborators.

The 10 intrinsic motivations: understanding what drives us

Each intrinsic motivation is unique. There is no “good” or “bad” motivation. Here is a presentation of the 10 motivations identified by Jurgen Appelo, which we chose to divide into two categories: those that depend on others and those that depend on oneself.

Training on time management is an excellent example of knowledge that deserves to be accessible to everyone, because it benefits both the individual and the collective. For the individual, learning to organize oneself better, being able to prioritize, and planning tasks are skills that help gain serenity and efficiency. These practical tips have the advantage of being relevant to everyone, regardless of age, profession, or industry: from young graduates starting their careers, to parents juggling professional and personal life, to experienced executives seeking to optimize a busy schedule. On a collective level, this personal improvement also has a concrete impact, since an employee who manages their time well can provide precise information to teams and clients, reassure stakeholders about a project’s progress, and foster a smooth and collaborative work environment.

Framing discussions

In his dialogues, Socrates favored open questions. Although effective in pushing interlocutors to think, they could sometimes leave them perplexed or lead them toward vague answers. In a structured learning context (such as training), it is important to guide discussions to prevent participants from feeling lost. How?

• By offering intermediate questions, more specific than open questions. Instead of directly asking “What is leadership?”, one might ask questions such as “What qualities do you see in an effective leader in your context?”. This latter question would help guide participants in their reflections.

• By providing a starting point with a practical case. Let us stay on the subject of leadership: a trainer could present participants with the following case: “You are the manager of a team facing a drop in motivation due to a complex project and tight deadlines. How could you respond to re-motivate your team and maintain objectives?” Participants would then be invited to reflect individually or in groups, then share their ideas. Some might suggest organizing a meeting to redefine priorities, others might consider delegating certain tasks to lighten the workload, and still others might propose celebrating progress made to restore positive momentum.

The balance between individual and collective reflection

Socratic dialogues could lead to a mixing of ideas from the outset. Moreover, audience members could hesitate to express opposing opinions, for fear of judgment or to avoid contradicting an already expressed viewpoint, which could lead to a form of self-censorship. Others, influenced by the first shared idea, could adjust their own reflection to conform to it.

To encourage more sincere and personal expression, it can therefore be useful to introduce a period of individual reflection before collective exchanges. A step that allows everyone to structure their ideas independently, limiting self-censorship and influence biases. When the time comes to share ideas in a group, discussions become richer and more authentic, because each participant has had time to develop a response of their own.

————

Adapting the Socratic method to the modern challenges of training means creating a framework for exchange where everyone develops their critical thinking and deepens their reflections. Applied to the training context, Socratic dialogues can be beneficial. Concretely, the trainer-facilitator establishes a climate of trust within a group so that each member feels respected and heard, without fear of judgment.

To avoid self-censorship and mutual influences, they can suggest starting with a period of individual reflection. Then, launch structured collective exchanges based on targeted and concrete questions, or through fictional situations that immerse participants in reality. During collective discussions, it is the trainer’s responsibility to ensure a fair distribution of speaking time and that shared ideas are perceived as contributions to reflection, not as absolute truths. The goal: to enable everyone to broaden their viewpoint, through contradiction, while allowing them to retain their free will.