Marin Mikulic Follow

May 31 6 min read

UX, Socrates and the Socratic Method

UX is, first and foremost, a problem-solving discipline with a focus on
end users. You might ask what the dierence is between that and any
other profession. There shouldnt be anybut lets leave that for an-
other article.

Truth be told, UX projects often dont look anything like the above defi-
nition. The reasons for this are many and guilt can be placed on both
the shoulders of upper management as well as the UX designer. Since
were not here to ruminate on the sometimes sad state of things, Ill
point out a specific challenge that crops up often and how we might go
about addressing it. Because, if not us, then who?

That challenge is not knowing the proper why behind a project Im given.

How I begin a project has, by far, the most immediate eect on the sub-
sequent delivery. Often Im simply handed a list of requirements for
some new featurecall it feature X. The sudden need for X, especially
in hierarchy-heavy environments, usually comes out of thin air. It sort
of just appears on the desk of my project manager and, shortly there-
after, on my own.

That forces me into a strange place where I work on X without being

aware of anything that justifies the need for X. I begin the process a
third of the way in, so to speak, instead of at the beginning. And that
initial third of the way bears enormous importance in the UX process.

Why?

Because UX is not so much a profession as it is a mode of thinking. Its

a mental model where knowing why we do something bears as much,
if not more, importance as actually doing the thing. That might sound
counterintuitiveisnt it better to just finish the thing and be done with
it? Well, in certain cases, it might be. Sometimes its better to slap on a
solution to something and move on because there was a crisis, or there
wasnt enough time, or whatever else. You have to stop the bleeding be-
fore fixing the broken leg. Fine.
Most of the time though, regardless of constraints, we are not pre-
vented from thinking. Especially in the beginning of a project, we must
invest as much time as is necessary or available to come to a fundamen-
tal understanding of why were doing what were about to do. Under-
standing the very problem that requires a solution ensures that the
eventual solution will actually solve the right problem.

Otherwise, there is a very real possibility that the project is not solving
the main problem but is rather fiddling with its symptoms. We end up
being hired to fix symptomssomething that will have little or no im-
pact on the clients business.

This leaves us with a choice. We can either follow the requirements list
to the letter and make sure to go through all the motions orwe can
slow down a little and begin a conversation with the stakeholders. In
theory, the latter sounds easier than it is, but in practiceanyone read-
ing this will know that its often not easy, and sometimes downright im-
possible, to make the person in charge change their mind.

One of the best ways of changing someones mind is to not really do it.
Now, if that sounds like the most unhelpful sentence in history, let me
introduce a good friend of mine.

Socrates (469399), the UX guy

Socrates has been nicknamed the father of Western philosophy, but he

has another nickname he gave himself during a particularly inspired
speech:

me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of

gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble horse
who is lazy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred
into life. I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day
long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and per-
suading and reproaching you. You will not easily find another like me
 Illustration: William W. B. Park

Why a gadfly? Sounds like a shitty nickname - all a gadfly ever does is
fly around and annoy people into constant moving and swatting, espe-
cially when they would most like to lay down and catch a nap. Which,
to my ears, sounds exactly like the work of a UX consultantespecially
in situations when we get a project whose purpose or reason is unclear.

Being unable to understand the source, need and benefit of a

project is reason enough to become a gadflyto spread our wings and
go annoy everyone in sight until we do. Of course, the goal is not really
to annoy. Its rather to ask questions in such a way that they break
through assumptions and presumptions, both in our own heads and in
the head of whomever were talking to.

People are much more likely to change their mind if they believe
theyve changed it themselves, and Socrates knew this. Thats why he
chose to probe people with questions instead of showering them with
answersso they would find truth by virtue of their own thinking and
say:

Wow, that was some good thinking there on my part!

He did that by using whats become known as the Socratic Method.

The Socratic Method

The Socratic Method is a form of argumentative (but not angry) dia-
logue between individuals that stirs the cogs of critical thinking into
motion. It relies on a continuous stream of questions that stretch the
mind in ways its not used towhich often means critical thinking, for
all of us. Socrates never sat down and formalized the method in writ-
ing, but today we can find them categorized into 6 concepts:

Questions for clarification: Why do you say we need feature X? Could

you phrase that another way?
Questions that probe assumptions: What else can we assume? Is every-
one assuming the same thing?
Questions that probe reasons and evidence: What do you think causes
the need for feature X? How did this situation come about?
Questions about viewpoints and perspectives: What could be an al-
ternative to feature X? Is there anyone here who sees the project in a dier-
ent way?
Questions that probe implications and consequences: What are the
consequences of assumptions we are making? If this and that is true, then
what else must be true?
Questions about the question itself: Why is this question (problem,
challenge) important? Can we break it down into smaller parts?

Each of these categories can contain many question that we ask until
one of the following happens :

1. you reveal information that helps clarify the need for X

2. the person youre talking to sees that theyre unable to logically ex-
plain the need for X (which is a sure sign that something needs to
change)

The project manager here is the obvious, but not the only choiceany
stakeholder will do. Everyone in some way related to the project (man-
agers, owners, developers, the coee machine) knows something about
it. By getting into the habit of asking simple and direct questions, con-
versation can be nudged along the path of critical thinking that will
help expose possible flaws in prior reasoning. Or, as Socrates put it, I
cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.

Now, all of this has to be done with great tact and patience. Dont just
whip out a list of questions and begin drilling everyone you see. The
core of the approach is to understand that prior reasoning is not neces-
sarily good reasoning and that it is important to verify it. Equally im-
portant is to learn how and when to ask questions, with enough
detachment that the person whom youre asking does not feel interro-
gated but rather feels part of a part of a thinking conversation about a
joint enterprise.

Socratic Tea Ceremony. Illustration: Jon Kudelka

As consultants, we should bring more than just a hard set of skills to

the table. If possible, we should aect the environment we come into as
well. Socrates understood that these environments are sometimes
great, noble and lazy horses who might benefit from a little gadfly if
the gadfly can manage to ask the right questions. This holds true for
both UX and other branches where confusing projects are an everyday
reality.

So go be a little gadfly.

The project and everyone involved will benefit from it.

. . .

Big thanks to Naomi Ochwat, Jessica Brewster, Magnus Skaalsveen and

Anna Trulsson for feedback.