5 ms·

> But without labelling it, I do endorse the technique. Almost everyone wants the world to get better. It is interesting to see how labeling a technique like t

> But without labelling it, I do endorse the technique. Almost everyone wants the world to get better. It is interesting to see how labeling a technique like this and assigning it a sense of moral superiority seems to invite the exact abuse you describe. I’ve noticed this with the recent popularity of “steelmanning”; Many of the explicitly-labeled steelman arguments I’ve read lately are actually just strawman arguments, but the author tries to preempt criticism by labeling it a steelman and pretending it is the most robust counter argument that could exist. Often these false steelman arguments arise when the author doesn’t understand the topic as well as they think they do but they believe that “steelmanning” automatically makes them an expert on the counter arguments.

panarky 4y ago
Steelmanning is when your interlocutor agrees with your description of their argument.
- I_complete_me 4y ago
  What a beautifully concise definition.
roenxi 4y ago
If it isn't labelled explicitly, by and large the cudgel people can't tell when it is happening, can't mimic it & don't know how to attack. The reason they cudgel is because they can't use empathy - if they could they would, it is a more powerful tool. Plus the cudgel hurts both parties. It sounds stupid, but I believe it. The flow of a lot of arguments make sense if you assume neither side understands practical empathy (not a comment on objectives, just they can't hold 2x perspectives in mind at once so a lot of the conversation is invisible to them).
- t-3 4y ago
  I've become convinced that (most?) people only possess "visual empathy" - that is, they can only empathize with what they can see. I think it explains why arguments on the internet often seem to have manipulative strawmanning sociopaths on both sides.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    I remember seeing somewhere that societal empathy didn't strongly exist as a cultural trait until people started reading stories where they put themselves in other people's shoes. I guess communal storytelling wasn't enough to change a persons mindset. It was in the context of historical greeks were all sociopaths and narcissists and quite different from the average person today.
- anamax 4y ago
  Many people confuse expressive with empathy.
pydry 4y ago
>Many of the explicitly-labeled steelman arguments I’ve read lately are actually just strawman arguments, but the author tries to preempt criticism by labeling it a steelman and pretending it is the most robust counter argument that could exist. Just means that they have limited imagination, no? I'd hesitate to label anything as steelmanning even if I believed that was what I was doing. Somebody else coming up with a slightly better argument than my labeled steelman would undermine my entire point. That said, successfully presenting an opponents steelman argument as well or better than they would and then countering it is very effective.
- TimPC 4y ago
  I’ve always found steelmanning to be stupid. If you want to discuss something with me you should actually discuss my argument not the argument you replace it with that you think is better and I think is worse.
  - pydry 4y ago
    I see it more as a way of pre-empting predictable retorts in a constrained time and space. If your retort is not obvious then fine, we discuss your argument. However, if I say A and I know 90% of people counter A with B then I'll say A and counter with steelmanned B and then counter that all at once so we can quickly jump to C. C would either be a less predictable counter or no counter at all.
    - TimPC 4y ago
      If you actually address B when I either say B or was inclined to say B then sure. But I’ve seen way too much of “that argument is weak, the better argument is X which fails because Y” meanwhile Y fails to refute the original argument making it quite unclear that X is actually a better argument.
      - pydry 4y ago
        >If you actually address B when I either say B or was inclined to say B then sure Thats kind of the whole point of steelmanning.
myfavoritedog 4y ago

panarky 4y ago

Steelmanning is when your interlocutor agrees with your description of their argument.

I_complete_me 4y ago
What a beautifully concise definition.

roenxi 4y ago

If it isn't labelled explicitly, by and large the cudgel people can't tell when it is happening, can't mimic it & don't know how to attack. The reason they cudgel is because they can't use empathy - if they could they would, it is a more powerful tool. Plus the cudgel hurts both parties. It sounds stupid, but I believe it. The flow of a lot of arguments make sense if you assume neither side understands practical empathy (not a comment on objectives, just they can't hold 2x perspectives in mind at once so a lot of the conversation is invisible to them).

t-3 4y ago
I've become convinced that (most?) people only possess "visual empathy" - that is, they can only empathize with what they can see. I think it explains why arguments on the internet often seem to have manipulative strawmanning sociopaths on both sides.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  I remember seeing somewhere that societal empathy didn't strongly exist as a cultural trait until people started reading stories where they put themselves in other people's shoes. I guess communal storytelling wasn't enough to change a persons mindset. It was in the context of historical greeks were all sociopaths and narcissists and quite different from the average person today.
anamax 4y ago
Many people confuse expressive with empathy.

pydry 4y ago

>Many of the explicitly-labeled steelman arguments I’ve read lately are actually just strawman arguments, but the author tries to preempt criticism by labeling it a steelman and pretending it is the most robust counter argument that could exist. Just means that they have limited imagination, no? I'd hesitate to label anything as steelmanning even if I believed that was what I was doing. Somebody else coming up with a slightly better argument than my labeled steelman would undermine my entire point. That said, successfully presenting an opponents steelman argument as well or better than they would and then countering it is very effective.

TimPC 4y ago
I’ve always found steelmanning to be stupid. If you want to discuss something with me you should actually discuss my argument not the argument you replace it with that you think is better and I think is worse.
- pydry 4y ago
  I see it more as a way of pre-empting predictable retorts in a constrained time and space. If your retort is not obvious then fine, we discuss your argument. However, if I say A and I know 90% of people counter A with B then I'll say A and counter with steelmanned B and then counter that all at once so we can quickly jump to C. C would either be a less predictable counter or no counter at all.
  - TimPC 4y ago
    If you actually address B when I either say B or was inclined to say B then sure. But I’ve seen way too much of “that argument is weak, the better argument is X which fails because Y” meanwhile Y fails to refute the original argument making it quite unclear that X is actually a better argument.
    - pydry 4y ago
      >If you actually address B when I either say B or was inclined to say B then sure Thats kind of the whole point of steelmanning.

myfavoritedog 4y ago