Steelmanning
And why you should do it
What is a Steel-man argument? It is the opposite of a Straw-man argument. But what is a Straw-man argument?
Suppose you and I are arguing.
A straw-man argument is a style of argument where I misrepresent, oversimplify, or otherwise trivialize your position, and then attack the trivialized version rather than your actual argument.
Thus, conversely, a steel-man argument is where I internalize and represent your position in the strongest and most compelling way possible. Then, I go on to attack or critique this strong version of your argument.
“Strawmanning” is common in politics, journalism, advertising, and even everyday conversation. It is sometimes a technique used by dishonest people who want to con their audience. But more often it is also a sign of ignorance; the arguer isn’t conscious of the fallacy of their technique.
Contrarywise, “Steelmanning” is an often demonstrates intellectual honesty, and a genuine effort to empathize with and understand the opponent's view. It also encourages critical thinking.
Paradoxically, it also helps strengthen one’s own argument; that which is stronger than steel is stronger than that which is weaker than straw.
More practically, it helps find common ground and practical solutions as opposed to arguing for arguments sake. Hence, unsurprisingly, “strawmanning” is common with tawkers — “steelmanning” with walkers and doers.
That said, steelmanning has some of its own problems.
It can be time and thought consuming — though this is probably true for all mature and nuanced discussions. Also, it is difficult to steel-man if both parties don’t trust the other — and don’t assume good faith. There is also the risk of over-steelmanning — where my steelmanning of your position is overly generous.
On balance, I think, in most situations, it is better to steel-man than not to steel-man.
What about you?
