3 ms·
I'm really impressed by this idea. I've never heard of the idea of "star-manning" an argument before, I presume the author invented it, it's good food for thoug
by safety1st 4y ago
I'm really impressed by this idea. I've never heard of the idea of "star-manning" an argument before, I presume the author invented it, it's good food for thought.
There's another interesting term in here - "ideological capture" - seems like this refers to the state where a person or organization is supporting policy based on ideology or group identity rather than what policy would yield the best outcomes for all of the people involved.
I don't think star-manning is a replacement for steel-manning. More like there are situations where no matter how well you steel-man someone's argument, they're not going to listen, because you don't like each other (or each other's views). Maybe the place where this idea is most applicable is when someone else is in an adversarial mode, it's really the person themselves that you need to "star-man" to establish that common ground is possible and get them into a cooperative mode.
- zmgsabst 4y agoI still think steelmanning is the right path to addressing conflict. Even in very tense settings, it’s hard for people to be disagreeable about you accurately relaying their view — maybe even better than they did themselves. That makes people feel listened to and understood, which are powerful motivators in human psychology. I won’t pretend I always do this, but I’ve certainly had the best success inquiring about their position until I can steelman it and only then addressing why I disagree. As Chris Voss would say, you don’t want them to say “you’re right”, you want them to say “that’s right”.