Dancratic method in a nutshell

With the help of good friends, I've developed an approach to conversation over the last couple of decades.  In this blog I'm trying to forge that approach into a system that I'm calling the Dancratic method.

PREMISE: Everything should be able to be questioned.  If it doesn't hold up to scrutiny it should be considered theoretical at best.

i.e. You should be able to question 2+2= 5 and adhere to the rules below. Even the most volatile topics can be discussed with civility if  followed properly.  

Dancratic method is a specific application of Socratic method.  Instead of a group discussion lead by a teacher or leader, these rules can facilitate 1 on 1 conversation for productive truth seeking.  There is no persuasive element to Dancratic rules.  

GOAL: The goal is learning something new.  Perhaps understanding a different perspective a little more.  There is no winning, and no losing unless you break a rule- then everyone loses.  

5 RULES:

1. Be kind
1. No name calling of any kind. (You are a "Nazi", whateverphobe, profanity, etc..)
2. No belittling or cancellation, discrediting or saying one side is just smarter or stupid. 
2. Credentials: You cannot use level of education on a topic as a foundation for an argument. You may reference a book for information, however it may not be used as an answer without any other grounds. (i.e. the Bible says so) .  Claiming that you are more intelligent than the other person is a sure sign that you are not.
3. Patience: No shutting down the conversation or raising voice. No being offended.  No dismissiveness, no eye rolling, "we can't be friends anymore", etc..
4. Reaction: 
1. No threats of any kind.  
2. No raising of voices or physical intimidation.
3. No humiliating, embarrassing, or aggravating the other person.
5. Judgement: No guilty judgement of either party. (i.e. "supporting abortion means you are a murderer", or "you are going to hell" )

GUIDE LINES: 

1. Not everyone is capable of adhering to these rules, so the positive take away is that you are aware of that going forward.   Know that you may leave a conversation without any new information too.  
2. Try not to generalize.  i.e. all of this race or trait owes all of this other race or trait something.  Or if both participants are of the same race or trait and one says "we are responsible", or "they are responsible", lumping in all the people with a particular trait.  
3. Edge cases can be a part of discussion but not the foundation.
4. It is sometimes productive to play Devil's advocate in a conversation, but it should be disclosed at the beginning of the discussion.  

Imagine 2 child versions of Spock having a conversation about any topic from different perspectives.  No ego, no complexes, no hurt feelings, no mal intent, .. just seeking objective truth and logic with the hope of learning something you didn't know before.