4 ms·

There's two problems I see with steelmanning: 1. People are often not, in fact, arguing in good faith. It's easier to see this if we look at things in hindsigh

There's two problems I see with steelmanning: 1. People are often not, in fact, arguing in good faith. It's easier to see this if we look at things in hindsight, though sometimes it's super obvious even in the present. One could look at Russian state media on Ukraine as an example where trying to take their arguments at face value would have you contorting yourself into knots. This takes you further from reality, further from the truth. 2. There are often good points to be made on exactly where your opponent is weak. That they're weak on some point isn't a reason to shy away -- if the end goal is more knowledge and understanding for all, then ignoring certain aspects of an issue just because you're trying to be "nice" is a net negative. To use #2 against myself: I'm generally pro multi-modal transportation, but it's true that car dominance has some advantages for larger families, and that the 'transition period' where you're taking away car resources but transit/walking/biking still aren't all that great is awkward. Someone arguing against my points should not just ignore these areas because they're areas of weakness for me. They're things people deserve to know about, issues that would have to be handled.

PoignardAzur 5y ago
But... I mean... you're doing steelmanning with your last paragraph! You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is!
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Getting a little meta there, man. I'm demonstrating what would be lost if someone steelmanned me in an actual argument about transportation. > You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is! No it isn't? Or at least, that's not how I've understood it. From how I've seen people discuss it, I thought it included avoiding attacking your opponent's weak points, not just engaging them on strong ones. I don't think we should preemptively avoid points within an issue just because our opponent is either weak or strong on them. I have no problem looking at the good points of my opponents and even acknowledging they have some validity, but I'm not gonna avoid attacking their weak points too.
  - pdpi 5y ago
    To put steelmanning in software terms: if we’re arguing about what algorithm to use to solve a certain problem, I can assume you’ll work out all the bugs in your implementation (in your example: e.g. getting capacity/speed numbers slightly wrong for some modes of transportation), and focus on the core algorithm instead (e.g. that transitional period is something that definitely needs to be addressed)
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      That's not actually analogous, though, because often the weak points aren't "bugs to be worked out". For example, take this Parks & Rec clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psi5m4x5aT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psi5m4x5aT0 While this lady was courageous enough to be willing to put her bigotry out in the open, for every person like this, there's 10 more locals with similar sentiments who are self-aware enough to not say the quiet part out loud. This is a weak point within NIMBY arguments -- that often they don't want "those people" around, whether that be a matter of race or class -- but it's not merely a bug you can iron out, because it's actually a core motivator for their political position. It has to be, or at least should be addressed. "Act as if your opponent isn't racist or classist" means partially detaching yourself from the reality of the situation, if the current situation is that they are, in fact, racist or classist. In other words, steelmanning risks misrepresenting your opponent's actual position -- exactly the same flaw as strawmanning, but in the opposite direction.
      - pdpi 5y ago
        There's two things at play here. One is your political opinions vs theirs, the other is your arguments for how you should handle a specific concrete situation. Crucially, the former doesn't (edit: necessarily) change the merits of the latter. Would you accept the thrust of their argument if it came from a different (non-racist/classist) speaker? Then their racism is just a bug you can dismiss. Focusing on it is actually a straw man, because that's not germane to the argument they're actually making! Does the argument hinge, at its core, on unspoken racist assumptions? Then it's a fundamental part of the argument and you need to tackle it.

PoignardAzur 5y ago

But... I mean... you're doing steelmanning with your last paragraph! You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is!

TulliusCicero 5y ago
Getting a little meta there, man. I'm demonstrating what would be lost if someone steelmanned me in an actual argument about transportation. > You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is! No it isn't? Or at least, that's not how I've understood it. From how I've seen people discuss it, I thought it included avoiding attacking your opponent's weak points, not just engaging them on strong ones. I don't think we should preemptively avoid points within an issue just because our opponent is either weak or strong on them. I have no problem looking at the good points of my opponents and even acknowledging they have some validity, but I'm not gonna avoid attacking their weak points too.
- pdpi 5y ago
  To put steelmanning in software terms: if we’re arguing about what algorithm to use to solve a certain problem, I can assume you’ll work out all the bugs in your implementation (in your example: e.g. getting capacity/speed numbers slightly wrong for some modes of transportation), and focus on the core algorithm instead (e.g. that transitional period is something that definitely needs to be addressed)
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    That's not actually analogous, though, because often the weak points aren't "bugs to be worked out". For example, take this Parks & Rec clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psi5m4x5aT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psi5m4x5aT0 While this lady was courageous enough to be willing to put her bigotry out in the open, for every person like this, there's 10 more locals with similar sentiments who are self-aware enough to not say the quiet part out loud. This is a weak point within NIMBY arguments -- that often they don't want "those people" around, whether that be a matter of race or class -- but it's not merely a bug you can iron out, because it's actually a core motivator for their political position. It has to be, or at least should be addressed. "Act as if your opponent isn't racist or classist" means partially detaching yourself from the reality of the situation, if the current situation is that they are, in fact, racist or classist. In other words, steelmanning risks misrepresenting your opponent's actual position -- exactly the same flaw as strawmanning, but in the opposite direction.
    - pdpi 5y ago
      There's two things at play here. One is your political opinions vs theirs, the other is your arguments for how you should handle a specific concrete situation. Crucially, the former doesn't (edit: necessarily) change the merits of the latter. Would you accept the thrust of their argument if it came from a different (non-racist/classist) speaker? Then their racism is just a bug you can dismiss. Focusing on it is actually a straw man, because that's not germane to the argument they're actually making! Does the argument hinge, at its core, on unspoken racist assumptions? Then it's a fundamental part of the argument and you need to tackle it.