4 ms·

For me, the problem with "Steelmanning" is that it is extremely useful in exactly the same set of circumstances were it is also completely unnecessary; argument

For 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 ago
Yea, 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 ago
  That sounds to me like its useless in essentially all of politics
  - jnsaff2 4y ago
    In 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 ago
      They 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 ago
        That'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.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    In politics the BATNA is to find allies to outvote your opponent. That's what voting is for: when you absolutely, positively cannot come to an agreement, you choose the opinion of the majority. This an absolutely terrible option. It's rife with abuse, and even when fair, is only right slightly more than it's wrong. It doesn't resolve any of the underlying issues, which continue to exist. It seems to be better than any of the other last-ditch options, but it's incredibly bad. Even among your allies, you're still stuck with the same problem. Being allies you're hoping that their core agreements with you will enable tactics like steelmanning to work, though in a lot of cases it still doesn't.
jamesrom 4y ago
It's true, emotions and argumentivity require a different tact than just "steelmanning". I can think of plenty of reasons where steelmanning is not the best rhetoric in those kinds of situations. On the flip side, steelmanning is a really good "high ground maneuver". A good faith effort at trying to understand and strengthen the argument of someone who is being argumentative is a way to take the emotion out of the argument. You might find you have endeared yourself to them, and doing so have created a chance to shift their thinking a degree.

jnsaff2 4y ago

Yea, 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 ago
That sounds to me like its useless in essentially all of politics
- jnsaff2 4y ago
  In 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 ago
    They 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 ago
      That'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.
- jfengel 4y ago
  In politics the BATNA is to find allies to outvote your opponent. That's what voting is for: when you absolutely, positively cannot come to an agreement, you choose the opinion of the majority. This an absolutely terrible option. It's rife with abuse, and even when fair, is only right slightly more than it's wrong. It doesn't resolve any of the underlying issues, which continue to exist. It seems to be better than any of the other last-ditch options, but it's incredibly bad. Even among your allies, you're still stuck with the same problem. Being allies you're hoping that their core agreements with you will enable tactics like steelmanning to work, though in a lot of cases it still doesn't.

jamesrom 4y ago

It's true, emotions and argumentivity require a different tact than just "steelmanning". I can think of plenty of reasons where steelmanning is not the best rhetoric in those kinds of situations. On the flip side, steelmanning is a really good "high ground maneuver". A good faith effort at trying to understand and strengthen the argument of someone who is being argumentative is a way to take the emotion out of the argument. You might find you have endeared yourself to them, and doing so have created a chance to shift their thinking a degree.