8 ms·

This 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 hu

This 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 ago
And now I am going to have to re-read that masterpiece... le sigh
- verdagon 4y ago
  Definitely 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Hopefully 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 ago
    Oh my god, I'm so glad this is a thing. I stumbled on HPMoR last summer and marathoned the whole thing.
nuclearnice1 4y ago
Andrew 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 ago
  A 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 ago
    I couldn’t agree more, well said
  - R0b0t1 4y ago
    I 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      Draw 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 ago
HPMoR 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 ago
I 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        It'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 ago
        It’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 ago
  I 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.

TrainedMonkey 4y ago

And now I am going to have to re-read that masterpiece... le sigh

verdagon 4y ago
Definitely 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Hopefully 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 ago
  Oh my god, I'm so glad this is a thing. I stumbled on HPMoR last summer and marathoned the whole thing.

nuclearnice1 4y ago

Andrew 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 ago
A 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 ago
  I couldn’t agree more, well said
- R0b0t1 4y ago
  I 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Draw 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 ago

HPMoR 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 ago

I 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      It'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 ago
        It’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 ago
I 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.