4 ms·

>"But steel-manning really helps break out of that pattern and meaningfully connect with what others are saying." Steelmanning means that you ignore the argume

>"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.
- michaelt 4y ago
  > you restate a summary of the argument in your own words and in good faith, bolstering it or lending structure where needed [...] Then the person has a chance to correct you. Where are y'all seeing these debates actually happen? I always assumed steelmanning was a process you conduct entirely in your mind, while deciding your opinion or writing your editorial.
zimbatm 4y ago
> 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'. That's not quite steelmanning. Steelmanning means that you rephrase the argument your interlocuter makes, with your own words, until they agree that it's the same or close enough. That's what creates the connection. The agreement is the important distinction and what creates the connection. Even if you disagree, at least there is a level of respect that comes from hearing the person out and not misrepresenting their point. Your definition is quite close but is skipping that last step that makes all the difference.
- feintruled 4y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I recently read of steelmanning too by coincidence and have been fascinated with how it might work in practice. I think it also means you should assume good faith too, right? So if someone says they are anti-abortion but pro-death penalty (for example) you don't jump on the hypocrisy as you see it but say "I see, so for you there is some material difference between the life of an unborn child and the life of a convict." When put this way it is easy to see where the other person's rationale is coming from. I guess it like the Socractic method (except a little less confrontational) in which you restate the opponents statements in terms they can agree with, then follow up with questions exploring that until you trap them in a contradiction even they are forced to recognise.
  - feet 4y ago
    Things in the realm of anti abortion and pro death penalty break down when you get down to the root of things, which is free will and innocence of the unborn soul From my understanding that's what is behind both of these ideologies, and both of those things are 100% made up fiction There is literally no evidence for an immaterial soul and there is actually evidence that free will is an illusion, but the people who believe things things have their beliefs rooted in religion
    - NateEag 4y ago
jameshart 4y ago
Did you just… strawman the concept of steelmanning?
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  They did, and they did it by conflating steelmanning with strawmanning

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.

michaelt 4y ago
> you restate a summary of the argument in your own words and in good faith, bolstering it or lending structure where needed [...] Then the person has a chance to correct you. Where are y'all seeing these debates actually happen? I always assumed steelmanning was a process you conduct entirely in your mind, while deciding your opinion or writing your editorial.

zimbatm 4y ago

> 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'. That's not quite steelmanning. Steelmanning means that you rephrase the argument your interlocuter makes, with your own words, until they agree that it's the same or close enough. That's what creates the connection. The agreement is the important distinction and what creates the connection. Even if you disagree, at least there is a level of respect that comes from hearing the person out and not misrepresenting their point. Your definition is quite close but is skipping that last step that makes all the difference.

feintruled 4y ago
Thanks for the clarification. I recently read of steelmanning too by coincidence and have been fascinated with how it might work in practice. I think it also means you should assume good faith too, right? So if someone says they are anti-abortion but pro-death penalty (for example) you don't jump on the hypocrisy as you see it but say "I see, so for you there is some material difference between the life of an unborn child and the life of a convict." When put this way it is easy to see where the other person's rationale is coming from. I guess it like the Socractic method (except a little less confrontational) in which you restate the opponents statements in terms they can agree with, then follow up with questions exploring that until you trap them in a contradiction even they are forced to recognise.
- feet 4y ago
  Things in the realm of anti abortion and pro death penalty break down when you get down to the root of things, which is free will and innocence of the unborn soul From my understanding that's what is behind both of these ideologies, and both of those things are 100% made up fiction There is literally no evidence for an immaterial soul and there is actually evidence that free will is an illusion, but the people who believe things things have their beliefs rooted in religion
  - NateEag 4y ago

jameshart 4y ago

Did you just… strawman the concept of steelmanning?

pcthrowaway 4y ago
They did, and they did it by conflating steelmanning with strawmanning