4 ms·
Honestly I see "steelmanning" as an emergent property of a completely broken discourse in the first place. The whole concept derives from the idea that we need
by Traster 4y ago
Honestly I see "steelmanning" as an emergent property of a completely broken discourse in the first place. The whole concept derives from the idea that we need specific terminology for when we're going to actually discuss things in a reasonable manner. It's basically a response to a group of public intellectuals who have emerged on the internet that spend more time building their brand and dunking on their opponents within their own echo chamber than actually trying to persuade people. And these public intellectuals are so well-read that they reinvented devils-advocate in their own bubble. It also stems from a kind of silly idea that the things we disagree over boil down to finding logical errors in each others positions, rather than emerging from deep-rooted differences in values.
In the example in the article there is just a fundamental difference in how those people see the world. One person thinks that by and large people are free to openly disagree with the consensus and would do so if they wanted to, and the other person thinks that disagreeing with the public consensus on controversial topics has such a high price that people choose not to do it. Depending on your experience in the world either of those two views can be right. In fact, you can pull examples on both sides of this - where contrarians have successfully changed the consensus and are celebrated for it, or have spoken out and been stigmatized for it. These opposing positions stem from such a deep difference in world views it's useless to talk about Ivemectin. So the issue here isn't steelmanning, it's that you're not actually discussing the point of contention.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoThe idea of understanding your opponent’s arguments/beliefs better than they do is a centuries old technique.
- infogulch 4y agoTrue. And yet here we are discussing an ancient conversational staple as if it were a novelty, because it is novel to many. How did this come to be?
- mensetmanusman 4y agoBecause of death. :) Every generation thinks they are doing something novel until they are confronted with history.
- infogulch 4y agoDoes this need to be rediscovered every generation, and has it been in past generations? Could this be taught in standard curriculum as a core value instead?
- mensetmanusman 4y agoGreat question! Modern tends towards a post truth relativistic framework would point to no.
- diordiderot 4y ago> It also stems from a kind of silly idea that the things we disagree over boil down to finding logical errors in each others positions, rather than emerging from deep-rooted differences in values I lived with the same roommate for 3 years in university who was across the isle from me. We had many long conversations and I would say that ~70% of our differences in opinion boiled down to having different values.
- wussboy 4y agoIn my experience, most of the people I thought I disagreed with, I actually agreed with once we found the root misunderstanding between us.
- hitekker 4y agoThis should be the top comment. The utility of the word "steelman" is already mostly covered by words like "Devil's advocate". Instead, the real purpose of the term is to signal "look at how smart I am, I'm putting in way more effort than anyone else". Posture first, discuss second. The equivocation in the current top comment thread stems from that ego problem. People use words they don't understand that they think sound smart. When confronted by more effective & but less smart words, they're too lazy and prideful to switch so they instead pretend they mean the same thing.
- davidivadavid 4y agoRight. Silicon Valley seems to love those types of cringey shibboleths like "forcing function" and other nonsense.
- zamadatix 4y agoTalking to your opponent's viewpoint isn't being a Devil's advocate and you can't steelman a viewpoint that doesn't exist. Devil's advocate is about inventing an opposing viewpoint when none exists to allow for debate to strengthen the case of the held viewpoint. Steelmanning is about solidifying the opposing viewpoint instead of minor errors specific to the original formulation of the opposing viewpoint allowing for a stronger defence of the held viewpoint. I'd agree steelmanning used to be considered standard part of discussion but its breakout seems unrelated to reinventing Devil's advocate and more about reinventing that missing piece of discussion which doesn't usually occur in online debate. Regardless what steelmanning is or isn't that part of discussion was never supposed to be referred to as playing Devil's advocate.