3 ms·

>1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way." The

>1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way." There's a closely related concept with a pretty catchy name, which is something that's often useful for making concepts stick; perhaps HN could make use of it. That concept is the "steel man": >Sometimes the term "steel man" is used to refer to a position's or argument's improved form. A straw man is a misrepresentation of someone's position or argument that is easy to defeat: a "steel man" is an improvement of someone's position or argument that is harder to defeat than their originally stated position or argument. [1] It can be used as a noun or a verb, e.g. >We will want to "steel-man" NASA's argument. [2] This can be considered a stronger version of the idea in 1. since it deals with improving not only the expression but also the substance of the opposing side's argument. [1] http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Steel_man [2] http://lesswrong.com/lw/hab/rocket_science_and_big_money_a_cautionary_tale_of/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hab/rocket_science_and_big_money_a_c...

pessimizer 13y ago
Thanks for this. This is how I argue, and I never knew someone had come up with a term for it. It also allows you to let other people win, sometimes, even if they consistently argue badly or illogically. It's good to let other people win as often as you can (at least for me.)
gojomo 13y ago
Another similar concept is the "Ideological Turing Test": can you answer questions from your ideological opponent's perspective so well that a third party can't tell you actually hold other views? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test Until you can pass it, you may be wasting time disputing a thin caricature of the actual opposing viewpoint. And as you do well on such a test, you are often helping to "steel-man" the viewpoint. (On the other hand, any time you are steel-manning an unsubscribed position, you might also be hinting at your true perspective, when you deploy extra effort against certain critiques.)
Gambit89 13y ago
It also goes by the name of principle of charity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

pessimizer 13y ago

Thanks for this. This is how I argue, and I never knew someone had come up with a term for it. It also allows you to let other people win, sometimes, even if they consistently argue badly or illogically. It's good to let other people win as often as you can (at least for me.)

gojomo 13y ago

Another similar concept is the "Ideological Turing Test": can you answer questions from your ideological opponent's perspective so well that a third party can't tell you actually hold other views? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test Until you can pass it, you may be wasting time disputing a thin caricature of the actual opposing viewpoint. And as you do well on such a test, you are often helping to "steel-man" the viewpoint. (On the other hand, any time you are steel-manning an unsubscribed position, you might also be hinting at your true perspective, when you deploy extra effort against certain critiques.)

Gambit89 13y ago

It also goes by the name of principle of charity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity