4 ms·

> it's going to fail when the opposite side cannot be convinced by rationality, which is most of the time. As many people have noted, arguing on the Internet i

> it's going to fail when the opposite side cannot be convinced by rationality, which is most of the time. As many people have noted, arguing on the Internet is a spectator sport. You don't need to convince your opponent, but by steel manning his arguments and addressing them, you have a greater chance of convincing the audience.

adastra22 2y ago
Maybe. Or you end up doing his work of making his arguments more accessible and reasonable sounding to a general audience.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  That is often my reluctance to use it, especially when talking to folks prone to confirmation bias. I'm not sure there is a way to convince people who only accept evidence that fits their existing worldview. It took me years and a lot of reading to finally seriously entertain the idea that the religion I was raised in could be false. Once I really opened up and stepped back it unraveled pretty quickly. Yet being that open can be very socially costly, as it was for me. If I'd heard steel man arguments from opponents while still closed to inconvenient truths, then I'd just have accept them without critical thought. And any attacks on that steel man would have been dismissed with whatever was convenient. It devolves into Rube Goldberg levels of mental hoop jumping to stay in that mindset. Though if the alternative is strained relationships or losing ones church community then it becomes second nature, even unconscious.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    Steel manning an argument is an extraordinarily powerful tool for rational thinking. I do it all the time, every time I encounter someone who holds beliefs I cannot understand. But I'm very hesitant to post the result of my steel-manning online, for this and other reasons. It's a private exercise. It's also quite dangerous if you're attached to your beliefs. I rarely walk away from steel manning an argument without being persuaded to some degree into a compromise position.
unclebucknasty 2y ago
>convincing the audience I used to believe this and found myself frequently arguing for any audience that might happen by versus trying to convince my interlocutor. But, I have come to believe that, in the "emotional" domains that GP mentions, the dynamic is largely the same for any audience as well. That is, you're not winning them over either if their beliefs are already set and were also never based on reason in the first place.
staticman2 2y ago
Why would steelmanning your opponent's argument help you convince anybody that argument is wrong? I mean, outside of some niche debate club blogs subcultures, who does thus? When there's a presidential debate, does the debater first improve the other guy's argument that he's corrupt before denying it?
electrodank 2y ago
If there’s one argument counter to what you’re saying, it’s that the front pages of most social media sites are filled with clickbaits and shitposts. Including HN of course.
dpkirchner 2y ago
> You don't need to convince your opponent, but by steel manning his arguments and addressing them, you have a greater chance of convincing the audience. I try to ask myself: "would I make this argument privately?" If not, I probably won't reply publicly. (I often fail to make the right choice, however.)

adastra22 2y ago

Maybe. Or you end up doing his work of making his arguments more accessible and reasonable sounding to a general audience.

paulryanrogers 2y ago
That is often my reluctance to use it, especially when talking to folks prone to confirmation bias. I'm not sure there is a way to convince people who only accept evidence that fits their existing worldview. It took me years and a lot of reading to finally seriously entertain the idea that the religion I was raised in could be false. Once I really opened up and stepped back it unraveled pretty quickly. Yet being that open can be very socially costly, as it was for me. If I'd heard steel man arguments from opponents while still closed to inconvenient truths, then I'd just have accept them without critical thought. And any attacks on that steel man would have been dismissed with whatever was convenient. It devolves into Rube Goldberg levels of mental hoop jumping to stay in that mindset. Though if the alternative is strained relationships or losing ones church community then it becomes second nature, even unconscious.
- adastra22 2y ago
  Steel manning an argument is an extraordinarily powerful tool for rational thinking. I do it all the time, every time I encounter someone who holds beliefs I cannot understand. But I'm very hesitant to post the result of my steel-manning online, for this and other reasons. It's a private exercise. It's also quite dangerous if you're attached to your beliefs. I rarely walk away from steel manning an argument without being persuaded to some degree into a compromise position.

unclebucknasty 2y ago

>convincing the audience I used to believe this and found myself frequently arguing for any audience that might happen by versus trying to convince my interlocutor. But, I have come to believe that, in the "emotional" domains that GP mentions, the dynamic is largely the same for any audience as well. That is, you're not winning them over either if their beliefs are already set and were also never based on reason in the first place.

staticman2 2y ago

Why would steelmanning your opponent's argument help you convince anybody that argument is wrong? I mean, outside of some niche debate club blogs subcultures, who does thus? When there's a presidential debate, does the debater first improve the other guy's argument that he's corrupt before denying it?

electrodank 2y ago

If there’s one argument counter to what you’re saying, it’s that the front pages of most social media sites are filled with clickbaits and shitposts. Including HN of course.

dpkirchner 2y ago

> You don't need to convince your opponent, but by steel manning his arguments and addressing them, you have a greater chance of convincing the audience. I try to ask myself: "would I make this argument privately?" If not, I probably won't reply publicly. (I often fail to make the right choice, however.)