Finally, become a question master. Information and comprehension will not present itself to you; most often, you will have to take it into your own hands. Questions will take a flat piece of information and turn it into a living, three-dimensional piece of knowledge that interacts with the world at large. That is the reality of any fact or piece of information; it has a story that we are usually overlooking. To ask a question is to see a subject, identify what you don't know, and also be open to the fact that your entire understanding could be wrong. Meaningful learning only occurs when you understand what surrounds information, such as the process and context.

Questions can take the form of Socratic questions, which are a set of six questions that force a closer look at assumptions and underlying beliefs. Questions can also take cues from Bloom's Taxonomy, which help you analyze and evaluate information.

Hear it here - https://bit.ly/selflearningblueprinthollins

Show notes and/or episode transcripts are available at https://bit.ly/self-growth-home

Peter Hollins is a bestselling author, human psychology researcher, and a dedicated student of the human condition. Visit https://bit.ly/peterhollins to pick up your FREE human nature cheat sheet: 7 surprising psychology studies that will change the way you think.

For narration information visit Russell Newton at https://bit.ly/VoW-home

For production information visit Newton Media Group LLC at https://bit.ly/newtonmg

#BenjaminBloom #Bloom #SocraticMethod #Taxonomy #TheQuestionMaster #SelfLearningBlueprint #RussellNewton #NewtonMG #PeterHollins #ArtandScienceofSelf-Growth

Benjamin Bloom,Bloom,Socratic Method,Taxonomy,The Question Master ,Self Learning Blueprint,Russell Newton,NewtonMG,Peter Hollins,Art and Science of Self-Growth

We saved an important tactic for last - how to become a question master.

The importance of being a question master cannot be overstated; it's not about being pedantic or provocative. We've said multiple times that you can't expect information to teach you or to make itself understood. This responsibility will always fall upon you in the end. If you're not getting or understanding something from a lecture, book, or video, the answer surely cannot be to keep reading the same passage over and over.

You must make an effort to investigate and pull understanding out yourself. It just makes you think of psychology experiments where rats continue to shock themselves by pressing a lever. No progress is being made, so obviously the approach needs to change. It's a clear example of working smarter, not harder; no one can deny that the rat works hard, but with questionable results.

Let's consider two people who read the same book on Spanish history. Jimbo will read along and review the information. He will take notes and can pass a test quite easily on the subject. His answers read like bullet points for a recipe for cornbread. He receives a B+. Kudos for Jimbo.

Kunal, on the other hand, reads the same book, but he only does this once or twice, and instead spends the rest of his time trying to gain a deeper understanding of the whys and motivations of Spanish conquistadors and kings. He attains an A+ on the same test, a better mark because he displayed a deeper insight that Jimbo could ever possess.

His answers are more like essays, and even though he forgot a couple minute details, he made insightful leaps of reasoning and judgment because of his deeper understanding.

He achieved this level of mastery by asking probing questions and using them to get behind facts and information. He processed the information and chewed on it with his questions. He finds that he doesn't even need to know all the facts if he asks the right questions, because he can predict what the conquistadors would probably have done. Kudos for Kunal.

In learning, it is said that answers are far less important than questions people ask. Indeed, we've also heard this advice in relation to job interviews, where you should always have "intelligent questions" to display that you understand the interviewing company on a deeper level.

Rote memorization of information is sometimes the goal, but if we ever want to understand and comprehend more deeply, questions are the first place to start. Questions will take a flat piece of information and turn it into a living, three-dimensional piece of knowledge that interacts with the world at large. That is the reality of any fact or piece of information; it has a story we are usually overlooking in the interest of speed or efficiency. To ask a question is to see a subject, identify what you don't know, and also be open to the fact that your entire understanding could be wrong. Meaningful learning only occurs when you understand what surrounds information, such as the background and context.

Put another way, good questions end up allowing us to triangulate understanding. Take a textbook, for example. It is necessarily broad and cannot hope to cover all the subtleties involved. If we fully accept what we read, then we are set on a singular path. If we ask questions, we are able to see that the path itself contains twists and turns and may not even be accurate. Different lines of inquiry are generated, and it is understood that there are multiple paths, each with their own perspective. Questions allow us to both clarify misunderstandings and reinforce what we already know. In the end, we come to an understanding of the same textbook that is nuanced and more accurate.

Luckily for us, teachers have known this for literally thousands of years. The most helpful framework for generating insightful questions comes from no other than Socrates himself, the ancient Greek philosopher perhaps best known for being Plato's teacher, as well as being executed by the state for "corrupting the minds of the youth." His method of teaching was largely in the form of dialogues and questions, appropriately called the Socratic Method.

When you boil it down, the Socratic Method is when you ask questions upon questions in an effort to dissect an assertion or statement for greater understanding. The person asking the questions might seem like they are on the offensive, but they are asking questions to enrich both parties and discover the underlying assumptions and motivations of the assertion or statement. It is from this process that we have a framework for effective questioning.

Imagine that you make a proclamation, and the only response you get is a smug, "Oh, is that so? What about X and Y?" Unfortunately, the know-it-all questioner is on the right path.

American law schools are notorious for using the Socratic Method. A professor will ask a student a question, and then the student will have to defend their statement against a professor's questioning regarding the merits of a case or law. It's not adversarial by nature, but it does force someone to explain their reasoning and logic - and of course, gaps in knowledge and logical flaws will probably surface. This process serves the goal of deeper understanding and insight. It may cause defensiveness, though it is not offensive in itself.

So what exactly is the Socratic Method beyond asking a series of tough questions that make people uncomfortable? When you do it to yourself, you are forcing understanding. You are putting yourself through an incredible stress test that will make you question yourself and your logic. It will force you to discard your assumptions and see what you might be missing. If you are mercilessly questioned and picked apart with Socratic questioning, what remains afterward will be deeply comprehended and validated. If there is an error in your thinking or a gap in your understanding, it will be found, corrected, and proofed with a rebuttal. That's deep learning.

As a brief example, imagine that you are telling someone that the sky is blue.

This seems like an unquestionable statement that is an easy truth. Obviously, the sky is blue. You've known that since you were a child. You go outside and witness it each day. You've told someone that their eyes were as blue as the sky. But remember, our goal with questions is to better acquire knowledge as to the sky's blueness. So imagine someone asks why you know it is blue.

There are many ways to answer that question, but you decide to say that you know the sky is blue because it reflects the ocean, and that the ocean is blue, even though this is erroneous. The questioner asks how you know it is a reflection of the ocean.

How would you answer this?

This brief line of Socratic questioning just revealed that you have no idea why or how the sky reflects (or doesn't) the blue of the planet's oceans. You just attempted to explain an underlying assumption, and you were mildly surprised to discover that you had no idea.

That, in a nutshell, is the importance of the Socratic Method. A series of innocent and simple questions directed at yourself, honestly and earnestly answered, can unravel what you thought you knew and lead you to understand exactly what you don't know. This is often just as important as knowing what you do know because it uncovers your blind spots and weaknesses. Recall that it was used by teachers as as teaching tool, so it is designed to impart deeper understanding and clarify ambiguities.

There are six types of Socratic questions as delineated by R.W. Paul. After just briefly glancing at this list, you might understand how these questions can improve your learning and lead you to fill in the gaps in your knowledge.

The six types of questions are:

1. Clarification questions - why exactly does it matter?

2. Probing assumptions - what hidden assumptions might exist?

3. Probing rationale, reasons, evidence - what proven evidence exists?

4. Questioning viewpoints and perspectives - what other perspectives exist?

5. Probing implications and consequences - what does this mean, what is the significance, and how does it connect to other information?

6. Questions about the question - why is this question important?

Clarification questions: What is the real meaning of what is being said? Is there an underlying hidden motivation or significance to this piece of information? What do they hope to achieve with it? Suppose we have the same assertion from above, where the sky is blue. Here are some sample questions from each category you could plausibly ask to gain clarity and challenge their thoughts.

* What does it matter to you if the sky is blue?

* What is the significance to you?

* What is the main issue here?

* What exactly do you mean by that?

* What does that have to do with the rest of the discussion?

* Why would you say that?

Probing assumptions: What assumptions are the assertions based on and are actually supported by evidence? What is opinion and belief, and what is evidence-based fact or proven in some other way? Unless you are reading a scientific paper, there are always inherent assumptions that may or may not be accurate.

* Is your blue my blue?

* Why do you think the sky is blue?

* How can you prove or verify that?

* Where is this coming from exactly?

* So what leads you to believe the sky is blue?

* How can you prove that the sky is blue?

Probing rationale, reasons, and evidence: How do you know the evidence is trustworthy and valid? What are the conclusions drawn, and what rationale, reasons, and evidence are specifically used in such a way? What might be missing or glazed over?

* What's the evidence for the sky's color, and why is it convincing?

* How exactly does the ocean's reflection color the sky?

* What is an example of that?

* Why do you think that is true?

* What if the information was incorrect or flawed?

* Can you tell me the reasoning?

Questioning viewpoints and perspectives: People will almost always present an assertion or argument from a specific bias, so play the devil's advocate and remain skeptical about what they have come up with. Ask why opposing viewpoints and perspectives aren't preferred and why they don't work.

* How else could your evidence be interpreted, an alternative view?

* Why is that research the best in proving that the sky is blue?

* Couldn't the same be said about proving the sky is red? Why or why not?

* What are the potential flaws in this argument?

* What is the counterargument?

* Why doesn't the sky color the ocean instead of the other way around?

Probing implications and consequences: What are the conclusions and why? What else could it mean, and why was this particular conclusion drawn? What will happen as a consequence, and why?

* If the sky is blue, what does that mean about reflections?

* Who is affected by the sky's color?

* What does this information mean, and what are the consequences?

* What does this finding imply? What else does it determine?

* How does it connect to the broader topic or narrative?

* If the sky is blue, what does that mean about the ocean?

* What else could your evidence and research prove about the planet?

Questions about the question: This is less effective when you are directing this question to yourself. Directed towards someone else, you are forcing people to ponder why you asked the question or why you went down that line of questioning, and realize that you had something you wanted to evoke. What did you mean when you said that, and why did you ask about X rather than Y?

* So why do you think I asked you about your belief in the sky's color?

* What do you think I wanted to do when I asked you about this?

* How do you think this knowledge might help you in other topics?

* How does this apply to everyday life and what we were discussing earlier?

At first, it sounds like a broken record, but there is a method to the madness. Each question may seem similar, but if answered correctly and adequately, they go in different directions. In the example of the blue sky, there are over twenty separate questions - twenty separate answers and probes into someone's simple assertion that the sky is blue. You can almost imagine how someone might discover that they know next to nothing and are only able to regurgitate a limited set of facts without context or understanding.

You can apply the Socratic Method to ensure that you are understanding what you think you are understanding. You can think of it as a systematic process of examining and just double-checking yourself. The end result will always be a win, as you either confirm your mastery or figure out exactly what is missing from your mastery.

Suppose you hear from a friend that the Spanish Inquisition was a fairly humane process of light interrogation, with only very humane maimings and lashings (various sources put the death toll at, on average, around one hundred thousand people). In this instance, you can use the Socratic questions to correct a mistake. The six question types, as a reminder:

1. Clarification questions - why does it matter?

2. Probing assumptions - what hidden assumptions might exist?

3. Probing rationale, reasons, evidence - what proven evidence exists?

4. Questioning viewpoints and perspectives - what other perspectives exist?

5. Probing implications and consequences - what does this mean, what is the significance, and how does it connect to other information?

6. Questions about the question - why is this question important?

To check the veracity of this statement, you might ask:

* What exactly is being said, and why does it matter?

* What is that statement based on?

* What makes you think it is true? Where's the evidence for it?

* Who might have this perspective, and why? What might be the opposing perspective? Why is that?

* What does this mean for Spanish history as a whole? Are all history textbooks incorrect? What else will be affected by this knowledge?

* Why do you think I might be asking you about this?

What about using the Socratic questions for deeper understanding of a topic, such as the biology of the brain? Actually, the questions don't change - all six of the above questions can be used in the same why to more deeply understand brain structures. You'll learn, you'll poke holes, and you'll understand. Isn't that what this whole thing is all about?

It essentially states that for the highest level of understanding, there are six levels we must be able to complete. Most people will never make it through all the levels in the taxonomy, so don't let yourself fall victim to that fate.

The current taxonomy's levels are, from lowest level to highest level of understanding:

* Remember. Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long?termÊmemory.

* Understand. Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages throughÊinterpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, andÊexplaining.

* Apply. Carrying out or using a procedure for executing or implementing.

* Analyze. Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate toÊone another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating, organizing,Êand attributing.

* Evaluate. Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking andÊcritiquing.

* Create. Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole;Êreorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, orÊproducing.

Once you hit the top level of "create," then you can be considered to have a deep grasp on a subject of skill. Without advancing through each level of the taxonomy, you can't adequately perform the next levels.

Before you can understand a concept, you must remember it. To apply a concept, you must first understand it. In order to evaluate a process, you must have analyzed it. To create an accurate conclusion, you must have completed a thorough evaluation.

Strategic questions stemming from the focus of each level can help you check your own knowledge, and the following graphic from flickr user enokson is illuminating as to the power of questions.