Socrates’ Teachings and My Wife’s Annoyance: A Reflection

I often annoy my wife. Of course, I annoy her for the typical reasons that any man would normally annoy his wife, but I also annoy her for another reason. When she makes a statement or indicates that we should act in a certain way, I sometimes question her or request a rationale. Often, I know I’ve gone wrong before I even utter the last word of my sentence. I often apologize, explaining that it’s an “occupational hazard”… and other times, I don’t, in which case, she knows what I’m doing and lets it go.

However, from time to time, it does genuinely annoy her, and then she lets me know about it. Which is fair. My wife doesn’t need second-guessing. It’s a safe assumption that she’s done her background work on her decision-making. Like me, she highly values the use of an evidence-based network of logic that facilitates the inference of a conclusion, and so her recommendations are based on said logic.

Upon reflection, I think it’s likely that my problem is that I’m a lecturer and researcher who tries his best to practice what he preaches in terms of critical thinking and its application. Of course, consistent with this role, I know that not everyone thinks critically, and those who do so don’t necessarily apply it all the time (myself included); so, when I question others, I might do so as an educational strategy and sometimes as an “insurance policy”—making sure that the best action is taken. I just have to remember that other people can think critically, as my wife generally does regarding important decisions.

I’ve previously recommended numerous tips for critical thinking—one of which is playing devil’s advocate. The occupational hazard I speak of when I explain myself to my wife is, in large part, in reference to this concept; that is, always question a perspective from multiple sides and consider alternatives. As one works through logic, one should always question it. By doing so, they can see the flaws in it and work to correct them.

From a critical thinking standpoint, playing devil’s advocate is a very useful tool. On the other hand, it’s probably not best to consistently apply it in conversation with a loved one. When my wife isn’t in the humor for it, she asks whether I do it with others, be it friends or colleagues—implying that if I do, perhaps I might eventually lose favor with them. In addition to some self-evaluation, this question got me thinking historically… did Socrates have many friends?

Now, I am by no means comparing myself to Socrates; rather, my training, research, and work with critical thinking have led me to adopt strategies consistent with what Socrates is said to have promoted; hence why he comes to mind. The Elenchus (aka the Socratic Method) and Socratic Irony, for example, are great strategies for facilitating the critical thinking process, and, in many ways, playing devil’s advocate is a simplified version of certain aspects of these strategies, which we can use in less formal dialogues. Both playing devil’s advocate and Socratic philosophy start from the point of ignorance—we don’t know—so let’s see what has been conjectured and what we can come to know from there. Regardless of what you call it, it’s likely to, at some times, annoy people. With that, Socrates was a controversial figure and was ultimately executed—not necessarily for annoying people by constantly questioning them but not for a completely unrelated reason either. Ultimately, thinking too much—“the unexamined life is not worth living”—impiety and poisoning the minds of Athens’ youth.

Simply, you don’t win friends by constantly questioning them, regardless of whether you call it playing devil’s advocate or an occupational hazard. So, I try to tell myself to give it a rest sometimes. But won’t that sacrifice the application of critical thought? No, it won’t—remember, you don’t need to think critically about everything.

To reiterate, I’m not saying you shouldn’t play devil’s advocate; rather, there’s a time and a place. Critical thinking is something we should apply when we truly care about the outcome of said thought. Moreover, if you trust someone’s credibility and they’re providing you with information on a topic with which you’re not well versed, I’d highly recommend listening to them. Often, my wife knows much more about a topic than I do or that I would even know after a few hours of reading up on it. So, I listen to her. Likewise, if I had a pain in my side for three days, no amount of online “researching” is going to trump seeking a doctor’s advice.

Sometimes, it’s OK to take the backseat. Intellectual humility is also an important aspect of critical thinking. So, be practical with your critical thinking—“pick your battles” in both your personal and professional life. From a social psychology perspective, you’ll catch more flies with honey.