13 ms·
Steelmanning: Discover the truth by helping your opponent
- verdagon 4y agoThis technique really changed the way I engage with others' ideas [0], the way I approach language design [1], and even my relationships. It's so easy for us humans to get caught in a "me vs. you" mentality, but steel-manning really helps break out of that pattern and meaningfully connect with what others are saying. It also unlocks the next level of rationality: the ability to admit you're wrong. After that one just needs to learn to actively test their own beliefs, and they can harness the true powers of the human mind. My favorite snippet from Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality: [2] "But make no mistake, Draco, true science really isn't like magic, you can't just do it and walk away unchanged like learning how to say the words of a new spell. The power comes with a cost, a cost so high that most people refuse to pay it." Draco nodded at this as though, finally, he'd heard something he could understand. "And that cost?" "Learning to admit you're wrong." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31937109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31937109 [1] https://vale.dev/ https://vale.dev/ [2] https://www.hpmor.com/chapter/7 https://www.hpmor.com/chapter/7
- TrainedMonkey 4y agoAnd now I am going to have to re-read that masterpiece... le sigh
- verdagon 4y agoDefinitely a masterpiece! I love this series. It's a wonderful blend of Ender's Game, cognitive science, and wizardly tomfoolery. Readers loved it so much that an entire cast of volunteers banded together as voice actors to make an audiobook podcast out of it. [0] Then, so many people listened to that and loved it, that folks even did an analysis podcast talking about the story chapter by chapter! [1] And then, people did an analysis podcast of the analysis podcast! [2] Anyone who hasn't read or listen to HPMoR should definitely give it a try. [0] https://hpmorpodcast.com/ https://hpmorpodcast.com/ [1] https://hpmorpodcast.com/?p=2336 https://hpmorpodcast.com/?p=2336 [2] https://www.patreon.com/posts/meta-mor-1-34064648 https://www.patreon.com/posts/meta-mor-1-34064648
- JoshTriplett 4y agoI love the original podcast and voices (and musical choices). There's another new audiobook version coming out chapter-by-chapter with a new narrator, which is also turning out quite well.
- seanp2k2 4y agoHopefully some day we’ll have voice emulation so good that it can do convincing voice acting. I’d love these in the voice of Benedict Cumberbatch.
- at_compile_time 4y agoOh my god, I'm so glad this is a thing. I stumbled on HPMoR last summer and marathoned the whole thing.
- nuclearnice1 4y agoAndrew Gelman offered a brief, mild critique of steelmanning [1] which you may find worth reading. [1] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/04/28/the-challenge-of-bending-over-backward-to-see-things-from-the-other-persons-point-of-view/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/04/28/the-challe...
- verdagon 4y agoA good read, thanks for the link. I think I'd disagree with his take on steelmanning though. He seems to think that in steelmanning, you need to assume the same assumptions as your opponent, thus precluding alternate possibilities. But, in steelmanning, you need to ask the opposing side if your understanding of their point is correct, and also list out all the assumptions made along the way to get to that claim. Once the assumptions are spoken out loud, it's easy to identify and focus on the first branch of disagreement. It saves a lot of time. That's the true power of steelmanning a hostile opponent.
- icedchocolate 4y agoI couldn’t agree more, well said
- R0b0t1 4y agoI agree with your assessment, but if your opponent is truly hostile it's not going to work. One person steelmanning and the other person strawmanning has a tendency to suffer from the same problem as always: to a superficially interested or poorly educated audience, defending against strawmen looks weak.
- galangalalgol 4y agoIf you discover you operate from different axioms, or that even your ideas of how to evaluate the value of an axiom differ, what is the next step?
- themeiguoren 4y agoDraw parallels to other domains where those axioms come into conflict, to try and get some references on how to weigh them. Eventually you just live with the fact that some people have different moral axioms and weightings. It’s a big part of what it means to know someone well, and does not at all preclude having a strong relationship with someone.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- seanp2k2 4y agoHPMoR is a national treasure. If, as a Harry Potter and science fan, you ever find yourself with a few days free to read something ridiculous yet insanely entertaining, give it a go.
- stormdennis 4y ago"You cannot always be right. You should try being wrong sometime, because you might learn something." -Johnny Depp
- kieckerjan 4y agoI am a bit puzzled that learning to admit that you are wrong is sometimes treated as attaining some kind of superpower. I would say it is just part of growing up. (Having said that, some people seem to never grow up.)
- roenxi 4y ago"This is true" and "Let us imagine that this is true" are radically, radically different positions. People who have a nuanced enough understanding to separate the two in an argument are rare. Entertaining the even more nuanced idea that someone else has a strong argument that is wrong is, effectively, a superpower. Not many people who are willing to argue can do that. Especially if they are capable of doing that in a persuasive, public fashion.
- swayvil 4y ago>"This is true" and "Let us imagine that this is true" are radically, radically different positions. What's the difference? Unintentional pretence vs intentional pretence? Strong imagining vs weak imagining? Both make an assertion. Both assign a degree of confidence.
- zmgsabst 4y agoThe second isn’t an assertion, it’s a hypothetical. Eg, “let’s imagine that elves are real” is distinct from “elves are real”.
- swayvil 4y agoIt's a confidence-modulated assertion. Hypothesis is low confidence. Fact is high confidence. There is no magic point at which hypothesis suddenly becomes fact. It's simply a matter of confidence.
- zmgsabst 4y agoIt’s confidence independent: “Let X” is a context bound hypothetical — we’re assuming it is true within some argument; we have perfect confidence in the hypothetical, but only within that context. That’s distinct from an assertion, which is a statement about how the world is with some associated confidence.
- Emma_Goldman 4y ago>"But steel-manning really helps break out of that pattern and meaningfully connect with what others are saying." Steelmanning means that you ignore the argument your interlocuter makes, in favour of the argument you think they should have made. It runs diametrically counter to trying to 'meaningfully connect with what others are saying'. If someone says 'X because Y', and you respond 'I think you mean X because Z but that's wrong', you have simply spoken past your interlocuter. Perhaps they actually meant 'X because Y2', but you didn't give them time to expand upon what '2' is. Or perhaps there's some other subtlety or depth that they have yet to expatiate. There are lots of associated problems: 1. It is very difficult to say what a different version of the 'same' argument is. Perhaps you reason from different premises to the same conclusion. Perhaps you reason from the same premise to a better conclusion. Perhaps you use a similar style or tradition of argument. Really, only your interlocuter knows what 'their' argument is. 2. What you think is the strongest version of an argument is, may not be what a second or third person thinks the strongest argument is. In some realms - moral and political - there are no mind-independent facts in reference to which one argument can be objectively justified over another. 'Strongest' is therefore relative. 3. If you default to talking about an argument your opponent did not make, that is liable to create enormous confusion. If they did the same thing, you would end up never actually talking to one another. It would be like Chinese whispers, each rationally reconstructing the other's last statement. What you really want to do is both 'interpret and understand' another's point of view, and then argue it through. The OP's link actually does a pretty good job of describing just that, but I think describing that as 'steelmannanning' is a misnomer. It's just philosophy as it has been understood for millennia. Steelmanning is supposed to be something more original. Looking it up, this is claimed to be the original coinage of the word: 'Then we would be steelmanning, the art of addressing the best form of the other person’s argument, even if it’s not the one they presented.'[1] [1] https://themerelyreal.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/steelmanning/ https://themerelyreal.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/steelmanning/
- theelous3 4y agoI strongly disagree with this interpretation. To the strength of your claims, the steelmanner is more engaging with themselves rather than the other person. Imagine a chess player playing both sides. This of course isn't what steelmanning looks like. It's simply an extension of good faith. The other person needs to be there and needs to have their personal claims and beliefs represented in the steelman. The most common steelman tactic is, after your opponent finishes a point, saying something to the effect of "Just so we're on the level, I'm going to restate what I believe your argument is and you can correct me if I've misinterpreted something". Then you restate a summary of the argument in your own words and in good faith, bolstering it or lending structure where needed, or perhaps adding an obvious missing caveat. Then the person has a chance to correct you. They can kick out any supports they don't want you to add or recind any caveats. From there, you can progress. This is what steelmanning looks like. The form of an argument and the crux of it are not the same. It's good faith to interpret the form favourably. Even in the most poorly stated arguments the core concept can be derived. You can give the person a better path to this central idea so as to ignore time waste arguments about the route, and instead attack that core idea. You've ironically painted a hollow and one dimensional view of steelmanning.
- DantesKite 4y agoIf you’ll steelman often enough, you’ll be surprised how often you change your mind as you realize your initial assessment wasn’t quite up to par.
- dgb23 4y agoThat’s the best outcome isn’t it?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hirundo 4y agoI'd really like to watch steelman debates. For instance a Marxist and a Hayekian debate from each other's point of view. Judges vote according to the quality of the steelmanning rather than the conclusion. So a partisan that makes a weak argument to protect his own inverse position loses even if his own position is obviously right. Before the debate I would judge the quality of the position by the willingness of its proponents to honestly steelman its opponents, tending to give them a better grasp of the big picture.
- Mezzie 4y agoEven just a segment where participants say 'what I think my opponent's main argument is and what are the argument's greatest strengths' would be fascinating. It would show how well the participants understand each other and that they actually engaged with the substance of each other's arguments rather than just angling for sound bites/pithy quotes. A full steelman debate format would be very interesting.
- scifibestfi 4y agoThat sounds great. Any Youtube recommendations?
- throw7 4y agoSteelmanning should be used by yourself from the start: 1. What is your central point? 2. What are your arguments? Rank them from best to worst. 3. What are your main claims? What explanations, supporting evidence and examples do you cite? 4. What are your emotional drivers, attitudes and beliefs, and motivations behind your viewpoint/worldview? 5. What are the vulnerabilities and weaknesses in any of the above? How can you fix them?
- anothernewdude 4y agoI feel like referring to them as an opponent isn't helping matters.
- spacemanmatt 4y agoNot all types of argument deserve this treatment.
- avindroth 4y agoTrue, but some of your best insights come from steelmanning arguments you initially thought were completely bogus.
- spacemanmatt 4y agoSounds like steelmanning is just another name for thinking things all the way through, then?
- scifibestfi 4y agoHow do you know until you steelman it?
- spacemanmatt 4y agoWhy don't you steelman me and find out.
- LAC-Tech 4y agoAfraid you might change your mind?
- MattRix 4y agoIt is not hard to think of examples where steelmanning would not be worthwhile, such as when someone thinks an entire group of people is inferior. And unfortunately these types of views underly a surprisingly large number of political opinions these days.
- LAC-Tech 4y agoAgain, are you afraid you might change your mind? I like to think I have a pretty good idea of why people - whose ideas I find repulsive - believe what they do. In my mind that means I have the capability to change their mind. The risk I take is that they can change mine.
- swatcoder 4y agoThis is a very good technique for rational inspection of an opposing argument, and a powerful tactic in debate clubs and mock trials. But it’s still a heady, rationalist approach to communication and will often stir up feelings of distrust, frustration, or resignation in the normal, everyday people that are pretty sure they’re right and see you doing intellectual performance art with their words. Of course, that’s also what makes it a very effective way to get under the skin of online trolls.
- gwd 4y ago> But it’s still a heady, rationalist approach to communication and will often stir up feelings of distrust, frustration, or resignation in the normal, everyday people that are pretty sure they’re right and see you doing intellectual performance art with their words. Maybe I'm in a weird corner of the world, but I find use for this technique constantly in my professional life. You're frequently in situations where as a group you need to make decisions, and sometimes emotions run high; trying to articulate everyone's position as clearly as possible helps cool people down and opens them up to listening to other ideas, as well as making sure that all the relevant aspects have been covered.
- LAC-Tech 4y agoI had some opinions changed today following a lengthy discussion with someone about a controversial subject. It's amazing what can happen when you don't assume someone who believes different things to you is an evil piece of shit. Maybe there's hope for the world after all!
- nuclearnice1 4y agoIndeed. What was the topic?
- LAC-Tech 4y agoI don't want to say - it would distract from the more important point about how we communicate. Just imagine the list of things you've seen flame wars about recently. It's one of those.
- nuclearnice1 4y ago
- LAC-Tech 4y agoKind of, yeah. 1. I've been on HN long enough - as a member and lurker - to have a pretty good idea on how the discussion would go. 2. I think the best discussions are had between people who can assume good faith. I don't think a public "debate" with randoms on the internet is the place for that. If you really want to know, you can email me. But I don't think it's that important.
- nuclearnice1 4y agoHow would the discussion go?
- LAC-Tech 4y agoComments would be made for the benefit of the peanut gallery. People want to hear incisive comments, zingers, cleverness, impassioned rants, etc etc. This is what imaginary internet points rewards. With a one on one conversation, you're being judged by one person and one person only. You can express ignorance, honest but controversial beliefs you may not wish to commit to the internet for all eternity, and so on. Public forums with imaginary internet points are a skinner box. HN may be better than a lot of others but it's still the same beast.
- scifibestfi 4y agoWe're at peak strawmanning. Now can we swing the pendulum to steelmanning?
- ineptech 4y agoThe problem is that steelmanning is only useful in one kind of argument (the kind in which each party would rather discover the correct answer than "win"), which is increasingly rare compared to the other kind (in which each party already knows their opponent to be evil, deluded, or both). Debates that include an audience are almost without exception the latter sort, in which steelmanning is worse than useless.
- oconnor663 4y ago> Debates that include an audience are almost without exception the latter sort I think a big exception is debate societies that meet regularly, where the folks doing the debating actually know each other and care about their long-term relationships with each other. But yeah, this isn't exactly a widespread hobby.
- gpm 4y agoEven in debates seeking truth, I think it's only an effective technique in a small subset. It doesn't work if the disagreement is because you're both just aware of a different set of facts. It doesn't work if the disagreement is because you have different fundamental goals. It doesn't work if the "debate" is actually a misunderstanding where you and someone else understand a term to mean different things. Amongst truth seeking debates, I feel like most casual ones end up falling into one of the above categories (more "academic" debates, the kind you find in philosophy classes, might be less likely too, because topics you can usefully debate are the ones actively discussed in those contexts). Also I'm not sure I agree that debates seeking truth are rare, they are just publicly broadcast less frequently so you come across more of them. Certainly I debate close friends and family matters on a fairly regular basis (for fun and learning).
- lolinder 4y agoIn my life the "tenth man" approach the article mentions and links to is more often what's called for. The theory is essentially to refuse to participate in an echo chamber. If everyone in a group is feeding off each other in bashing an unpopular viewpoint, then you represent that viewpoint as strongly as possible rather than joining in. I've used this technique with a lot of success, even in some pretty aggressive and opinionated groups. At a minimum it diffuses the echo chamber and the conversation turns to other topics, but I've also had good conversations come from it, where people leave understanding the other side better than they did before. Because you're representing a party that is not present, you're less likely to end up making them feel patronized than with steelmanning, but it has a similar effect on your own understanding. It's even better if you're able to help someone else see the other perspective, too!
- pclmulqdq 4y agoSteelmanning is a really interesting concept that has popped up in the last few years. It used to just be that "arguing in good faith" was what "steelmanning" is today, and strawmanning your opponent was rude. It says a lot about how we think that it is now considered special to try to figure out what your opponent in a debate actually believes so you can attack it on its merits.
- gnicholas 4y ago> It used to just be that "arguing in good faith" was what "steelmanning" is today Isn't steelmanning the practice of actively making your opponent's argument for them? This exercise goes beyond arguing in good faith, where you are arguing your own side, but in a way that doesn't strawman the other side.
- swatcoder 4y agoI think of “arguing in good faith” as working to clearly communicate a position, as against working to distress, embarrass, confuse, gaslight or otherwise personally undermine your opponent/audience. You can absolutely do it for a position you don’t hold, and it has nothing particular to do with steelmanning/strawmanning (and indeed, you can use both techniques bad faith).
- skykooler 4y agoReminds me of a story about the Wright brothers, who when arguing would agree to switch sides and argue each others point to try and overcome their bias.
- eslaught 4y agoThere's a danger, while steelmanning, that you might come up with an argument that sounds good to you, but it's actually weaker to the opposition. Therefore, while trying to steelman their argument, you actually fill it with holes. This can happen because you don't understand it deeply enough, but it can also happen because of a difference in values. This is why I think steelmanning is difficult, and frankly a little dangerous. To truly do it, you have to embed yourself not just in their rational thought but also in their worldview. And I really mean the part about it being dangerous. In all honesty, we aren't the purely rational creatures we think we are. Honestly steelmanning an argument changes you. And maybe that's for the better in some situations, but I certainly wouldn't take that for granted.
- nusaru 4y agoWouldn't the obvious solution be to steelman whatever you were steelmanning against in the first place?
- antognini 4y agoI think this gets at the related, but distinct, idea of the intellectual Turing test. The idea there is to present your opponent's argument in such a way that they can't tell if the argument came from you or someone on their side. If you can do that you have some assurance that you actually understand the argument they are making. You're right that steelmanning is a bit different in that you're trying to formulate the argument in a way that is most convincing to you. That may not necessarily be the argument that is most convincing to your opponent.
- JetAlone 4y agoBeing able to steelman someone else's argument without adopting their presuppositions, while understanding and possible experiencing the emotional/intuitive phenomena that got them to embrace them is a true test of your faith in your own worldview. If you "fail" that test, you will be absorbed into the outgroup and lose sight of your old emotional/intuitive presuppositions and worldview. You will lose a lot of friends and sunk costs, and be subjected to new rules. The risk is to literally lose your old self. That's horrifying, that idea can feel something like being abducted by the borg from star trek and converted into one of them.
- ranger207 4y agoAs always, there's a relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/106/ https://xkcd.com/106/ I really like this technique because it forces you to think about what assumptions the other side had to have made in order to reach their conclusion. I've often found that the other side's argument _is_ the logical choice based on their assumptions and background knowledge. From there I can examine those assumptions, and my own assumptions, and see which parts are incorrect, or id additional information would cause the argument to be less conclusive. I'll then focus my argument on those incorrect assumptions, because attacking the argument head-on often has counterproductive results. And of course, it's not uncommon to find that my own assumptions were incorrect while researching the other side's arguments and data
- jcrittenden 4y agoThis technique was demonstrated brilliantly in a debate between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEf6X-FueMo&t=3m12s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEf6X-FueMo&t=3m12s
- Datagenerator 4y agoWhat do you think is wrong with my view on this?
- ameminator 4y agoI don't find modern debate useful. I found myself with more "intellectual stakes" in an argument. In good faith, I would be more willing and able to change my mind or conclusions based on facts or good points made. Rather than make me more informed, it only served to weaken the side I presented in an argument, as the other sides of the debate would _not_ argue in an equivalently good-faith. In hindsight, I would identify some fallacy or point I didn't consider - usually well after the debate had ended, meaning I didn't even benefit from the good-faith approach that I took. Nowadays, I try to read as much as I can and come to my own conclusions in quiet contemplation. The debate was merely a distraction from my real goal of improved understanding. In that context, I don't have any expectations on debating at all, let alone using a rhetorical technique like steelmanning.
- aaron695 4y ago
- hunglee2 4y agoLex Friedman commonly asks this question for his guests on the podcast. The challenge of having to honestly explain - and then forcefully argue - your opponents case, enriches the conversation in a profound way. Tellingly, the guests who are unable to do this well, are invariably diminished. Excellent mental discipline, I suspect many of us here on HN could do with some practice on it
- EUV071STR48 4y ago> Excellent mental discipline, I suspect many of us here on HN could do with some practice on it come on...
- Sheeny96 4y agoRecently listened to the Douglas Murray episode. As someone who has followed Douglas for a while, it was disappointing to see him completely skirt the request to steelman his opponents arguments in any meaningful sense.
- hunglee2 4y agochanges your view doesn't it? I think it is a very good test
- AlbertCory 4y agoAnother formulation of this excellent technique is courtesy of Bob Taylor [1]: A Class Two disagreement is when each can explain to the other’s satisfaction the other’s point of view. I've actually tried this, and it was pure torture for the subjects. They would start out, reluctantly, "He says X, Y, and Z ... [long pause] but he's wrong! " You could see them try to state the other's POV, but they just couldn't do it. I think reading a more in-depth explanation like these might help a lot [1] https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-taylor-appreciation-20170417-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-taylo...
- gwd 4y ago> They would start out, reluctantly, "He says X, Y, and Z ... [long pause] but he's wrong! " I mean, a lot of people have trouble clearly articulating an argument for their own position, much less somebody else's. It's a skill like riding a bike or throwing a ball -- something that seems natural once you've had some practice, but not something we're born with. (NB I'm not talking about being correct; you can be right and know you're right without being able to articulate it well.) If anyone wants some practice, I found the book "The Logic of Real Arguments" by Alec Fisher [1] really fun and useful. [1] https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Logic_of_Real_Arguments/Q2a_RtDZUGgC?hl=en&gbpv=0 https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Logic_of_Real_Arg...
- AlbertCory 4y agoYeah, good point. "Arguing the other side's position" takes training.
- amadeuspagel 4y agoBryan Caplan came up with a similar idea, the ideological turing test: Can you make the case for something so that it's impossible to say whether you really believe it or not?
- infologics 4y ago[dead]
- amadeuspagel 4y agoIs it really likely that you can make a better case for the views of your opponents then they themselves? Is attempting that from scratch a better use of your time then reading the actual arguments that your opponents have? It seems to me that steelmanning often serves as an excuse to avoid that.
- andrewclunn 4y agoThe real problem with "steelmanning" is that not so clever people (who think they are oh so clever) believe they are capable of representing a position they do not hold. Perhaps seeking out others who actually advocate for the position (which you are attempting to steelman) and listening to their arguments would be better, but it doesn't stroke the ego in the same way, or allow arm-chair internet philosophers to make the same bold claims at objectivity.
- tpoacher 4y agoFor me, the problem with "Steelmanning" is that it is extremely useful in exactly the same set of circumstances were it is also completely unnecessary; arguments in non-debate settings where the goal is optimal decision making, and where neither side has any motivation to use deceptive tactics to promote their argument. In the presence of a motive for underhanded argumentation, strengthening your opponent's argument while allowing intentional weakening of yours is not a good recipe for useful outcomes.
- jnsaff2 4y agoYea, also I’ve come to understand that in a loaded, bad faith or ideological discussion there is no useful outcome and it makes sense to BATNA the shit out of it, usually in the form of not engaging or just walking away.
- feet 4y agoThat sounds to me like its useless in essentially all of politics
- jnsaff2 4y agoIn politics the BATNA will be different as there are real costs (like some bad, faith, actor is going to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own body).
- feet 4y agoThey do so in the name of things without evidence, such as the innocent immaterial souls of the unborn How can we approach this problem?
- ohthehugemanate 4y agoThat's a bit different from a bad faith actor or intent to deceive. There are entire branches of human endeavor (basically all the liberal arts, but here philosophy and theology are particularly relevant) built on discussing the immaterial or that without evidence. To take your example of the abortion issue in America, your steel man argument has to explain why an acorn is the same as an oak tree, or perhaps the difference between an acorn and a fertilized human egg. They have to account for the mass murder of fertility clinics and researchers throwing out thousands of fertilized embryos per day. Or you could choose to accept their philosophical argument about the start of life as a given, and discuss the consequences of it. E.g. you have a right to kill another human in self defence, unless the person threatening your life is inside a womb. Or the conditions under which you have a right to another person's life and body. Is there an innocence test we could do for organ transplant recipients, where the top end of the scale gives you a right? Lots of room for good faith discussion there, even on immaterial subjects.
- gregwebs 4y agoThere is an assumption in this article and many of the critiques in the comments that steelmanning is primarily useful for debating someone else. But debating is usually a trap where neither side achieves much. steelmanning is useful for having an actual conversation and to remind you in the words of Benjamin Franklin to "consult not contend". For me, most of the value of steelmanning is internal: questioning beliefs by dropping them and making the case for both sides. And when you find someone else doing this in their writing (for example Lyn Alden), you know you have found a useful source of information.
- dmalik 4y agoWe use this technique all the time where I work for UX design. Often when stakeholders ask for things to be a certain way we try our best to do it the way that it was asked for before exploring other options. Often we know it won't work because of intuition/experience but providing a best effort steelman option when presenting design options is very helpful in speeding through stakeholder reviews. Stakeholders will eat you alive in a review if you present a strawman of what they asked for.
- yk 4y agoSteelmanning is one of the ideas that sounds good in principle, but is usually a disaster in practice. In practice the only way I've ever seen it used was by building a straw man and then very loudly proclaiming that they're "steelmanning" while exploiting the second most stupid design flaw of the straw man. Closely related, point two "Help to fix your opponents argument," apart from being inherently escalatory, there is a pretty good chance that your opponent just made the argument like it is supposed to be and you're just not understanding it.
- ch4s3 4y agoIf your point here is that arguing against the best version of someone's argument leads you to tackle their more credible claims, then I don't see the problem. It sounds like at worst, that might elevate a discussion a bit. I've seen this approach in some oxford style debates and thought it made the debate better, as a viewer.
- peatmoss 4y agoI'd love to see a US presidential debate where each side represented their opponent's position, and the US electorate were somehow willing to make a quality understanding of the other sides' positions a key judgement criteria. A man can dream.
- mannykannot 4y agoSeveral people here are conflating steelmanning with strawmanning, but the latter is, at best, an attempt to make a bad argument out of how the other person chose to express their position, and it is downhill from there, with tricks like willful misunderstanding, the introduction of non-sequiturs, and claims of tacit premises that were never intended. Steelmanning can also be used as preemptive self-defense for your position, assuming that it is actually defensible (if it is not, the sooner you come to that conclusion, the better for all concerned, especially yourself.)
- ip26 4y agoAny time I see it in practice, it always comes across as incredibly condescending and frequently flat-out wrong, because the person attempting to steelman has usually not done the work to understand everything that goes into the other position. I prefer charitable interpretation (https://effectiviology.com/principle-of-charity/ https://effectiviology.com/principle-of-charity/) which is a good platform for learning about the other's position, and potentially helping them strengthen their position for themselves.
- Symmetry 4y agoOne way that I've seen attempted steelmaning go wrong is that the the inferential distance between the disputants is much larger than they think it is[1], leading to a false steelman that is actually a far less persuasive argument than the original would have been if the steelmanner had the background to understand the argument. As part of a dialogue this can be very useful as it can get the participants to realize they differ in foundational assumptions rather than just whatever they're talking about. But outside dialogue it can make the practice dangerous if you're not careful. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5LASfhhArZ7w/expecting-short-inferential-distances https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5LASfhhArZ7w/expecting-...
- thekingofrome 4y ago