Medical students and residents are familiar with clinical teaching methods in which a faculty member poses a series of questions to them. This technique is often called the BSocratic method,^but it is frequently perceived by learners as an attempt to demean them, a practice that is colloquially known as Bpimping.^The distinction between Socratic teaching and pimping lies in the perception of Bpsychological safety.^Psychological safety allows learners to answer questions or ask for help without threats to their dignity or worthiness. In a psychologically safe clinical teaching context, learners recognize that questions posed by attending physicians probe their current understanding and guide them to expand their knowledge. In pimping, questions are posed to embarrass the learner and to reinforce the teacher's position of power over them. Absent a threat of disparagement or condemnation, learners are able to focus on building schema for knowledge, skills, and attitudes, rather than worrying about shielding their self-worth. This article presents the proper Socratic method, as intended by Socrates, and contrasts it with pimping. This perspective defines psychological safety as the pivotal factor distinguishing Socratic teaching from pimping, and establishes the foundation for empirical studies of these common practices in medical education.