How To Be A Strong Defender of Your Ideas
I want to talk about two strategies that are used often during polarizing conversations or debates, and which one I believe will make you a greater debater, more intellectually honest, and a competent defender of your ideas.
Many people, both knowingly and unknowingly, find themselves refuting what seems to be the other side’s argument/premise, when in fact they are actually arguing against a modified version of the opponent’s argument.
This logical fallacy is known as the Straw man argument. I believe this tactic is intellectually dishonest because it contorts the argument of the other side unfairly and, at times, rather sneakily.
The person who is attacking the strawman is not looking to be on common grounds with their opponent and their arguments. He/she distorts their opponent’s arguments so that they can arrive at a conclusion that seems ridiculous, unintelligent, or evil — all to prop up their own arguments on a pedestal.
The Straw Man In Display
A great example of this would be the controversial Channel 4 interview between Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson.
From the start of the interview, Cathy Newman is pressing Jordan Peterson, critically examining his ideas, challenging his assertions and trying to figure out who he is and what he’s up to, as a good journalist should.
However, you start to notice that she starts inserting statements or claims that never came out of Dr. Peterson’s mouth. She started to use a phrase constantly throughout the interview — one that I believe revealed her intellectual dishonesty and refusal to acknowledge his words seriously throughout the entire conversation. It also became an infamous meme amongst (among?) the people who watched the interview.
“So what you’re saying is… [Insert Straw Man Argument]”
She rephrases his words and made it seem like he was the one saying it to set him up for a “gotcha” moment.
The first heated exchange comes in at around 5:48, where she brings up the gender pay gap. The merit of this argument is for another post, so we’ll talk about the strategy Cathy Newman was using in this one.
Cathy Newman asks Dr. Peterson about the existence of the gender pay gap, which is the assertion that women earn less than a man — specifically 77 — 79 cents to the man’s dollar, even when working in the same industry and performing same tasks — and the only reason they earn less is because Western Society has an oppressive patriarchal structure that favors men over women.
Dr. Peterson responds that gender is one of the many factors that could be the reason why statistically women earn less money than men. He denies the claim that the gender pay gap exists solely due to gender. It would be dishonest to analyze the data with one variable (gender) since that would skew the data and tell you only one side of the story.
Dr. Peterson: “Yeah, but there are multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but it’s not the only reason — like if you’re a social scientist worth your salt you never do a univariate analysis. You say well, women in aggregate are paid less than men. We’ll break it down by age, occupation, interest, personality…”
Cathy Newman: “But you’re saying basically it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top because that’s what’s skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying well that’s just a fact that women aren’t necessarily going to get to the top.”
- Dr. Peterson’s argument went from “there are multiple reasons why there is a gender pay gap, I’ll tell you what could affect the outcome” to Newman’s misinterpreted version of “the existence of the gender pay gap doesn’t matter”.
- She misconstrued his argument and clearly wasn’t listening to his reasoning. He wasn’t claiming that it didn’t exist entirely, but she disregarded whatever he said and shaped the statement into her own interpretation. She was trying to make Dr. Peterson look and sound like someone he was not.
Dr. Peterson: “No, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter. I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it.”
Cathy Newman: “Yeah, well why should women put up with those reasons?”
- Dr. Peterson parried well against the straw man fallacy by bringing the argument back to his original claim. He denies ever saying what Cathy claimed he said, and he tries to bring back his original statement.
- Cathy seems to be done with his explanation and quickly shifts to another point — asking why women should put up with these reasons rather than trying to correct her interpretation of his statements and expand on his ideas.
An honest conversation between two people depends on both sides being intellectually honest with each other and constantly clarifying each other’s arguments and assertions.
The ability to have civil and productive discourse is dependent on how easily you can detach yourself, your identity, from your ideas. It also depends on you not allowing emotions to enter the battlegrounds of logic and rationality. You are not your ideas and you shouldn’t be reluctant to let go of inferior ones if a better idea comes along.
To take out of context, misinterpret or exaggerate the interlocutor’s statements, to not give them a chance to clarify their position and ultimately assume that you know exactly what their claims are and what they truly believe and think is, in my opinion, an extremely dishonest way to engage in dialogue.
I hate to pick on Cathy Newman and use her as an example of what a straw man fallacy looks like in action because I believe she is a competent interviewer and a great example of a woman who has a competitive drive, is very intelligent and seems like a genuinely good person.
However, in this interview, I believe she failed miserably in having an honest and open dialogue with the man in front of her and resorted to attempts of mischaracterization and blatant misinterpretation of the interviewee.
I would love for her to sit down with Dr. Peterson off camera and have a 3-hour dialogue together, where the pressure and tension of having to appear on national television is nonexistent, where the social masks can come off, where they can laugh and joke with one another as fellow humans instead of seeing each other as opponents having to verbally spar one another.
If you have the time, I recommend you watch this video slowly and carefully. See how attentive Dr. Peterson is and how carefully he responds — first to deflect Cathy’s disingenuous interpretation of his argument, and then to lay out the facts he believes support his argument, and finally to explain his rationale as clearly as he can.
It’s an intense interview but you can really learn a lot about the strawman fallacy by watching this one video.
Have You Heard of The Steel Man?
“The beginning of thought is in disagreement — not only with others but also with ourselves.” — Eric Hoffer
The steel man, if you haven’t already guessed, is pretty much the opposite of a strawman argument. Instead of misrepresenting your opponent’s arguments and attacking them in their weaker/weakest form, the steel man props up the strongest arguments from the opponent's side and grapples with them seriously and carefully.
Now at first, you might be thinking — why on earth would you want to make the enemy’s side stronger? The enemy is already strong enough — why would I disadvantage myself more by contending with their most compelling arguments?
Steelmanning, although seemingly counterintuitive, is very effective not only in raising your confidence in your arguments but also in catching your opponents off guard.
You should treat your opponent’s side with the utmost respect.
You should know their arguments and their counterarguments as well as or better than them. You will become a force to be reckoned with. You’ll be better equipped to defend your beliefs as well as be well informed of the other side’s arguments.
You shouldn’t purposefully misinterpret anything they say to make your side appear stronger.
You should prepare for the strongest arguments, not the weakest.
If you do your due diligence and study on the other side, you may find some surprising things.
Studying and seriously contending with the strongest opposing arguments may strengthen your current beliefs because you have been able to reasonably defend them against the strongest arguments of the other side.
Or, it may even change your mind in the process and make you examine your unexamined beliefs. It may lead you to see that the other side’s arguments actually make sense, and it wasn’t coming from bad or evil intent.
We have to give merit to the contrarian point of view instead of dismissing them entirely. That is how we can avoid being in our own bubbles and encourage more productive dialogue with other people.
Instead of doubling down on our beliefs, we seek out what we fear and we plunge into the unknown.
Seek to understand rather than dismiss. How can you change anyone’s mind by standing on a moral or intellectual high ground and by making other people who don’t believe what you believe in feel stupid or evil?
It only makes people dig their toes deeper into the sand.
If you’d like to learn more about Steel-manning, I found a great blog post that I highly recommend. She tells you why steel-manning will help you argue or defend your arguments better, and also displays three reasons why we should partake in steel-manning when approaching an opposing argument.
Here is an excerpt of why steel-manning can make you a better rationalist.
I, and all of you, I think, care a great deal about what is true. One of the ways we find out what is true is to smash our arguments against each other and see what comes out, abandoning the invalid arguments and unsound conclusions for better and brighter ideas as we march towards Truth. Perhaps the greatest limitation on this method is the finitude of the arguments we can possibly encounter. By chance, we may never be exposed to good arguments for other positions or against our own, in which case we may wrongly but reasonably discount other positions as unsupported and incorrect, and we would never know.
So we need to find better arguments. Where? Well, aside from sitting in rooms alone arguing with ourselves (guilty), we have the opportunity to construct these better arguments every time we are arguing with someone. We probably know best which arguments are most difficult for our position, because we know our belief’s real weak points and what kind of evidence we tend to find compelling. So I challenge you, when arguing with someone, to use that information to look for ways to make their arguments better, more difficult for you to counter. This is the highest form of disagreement.
If you know of a better counter to your own argument than the one they’re giving, say so. If you know of evidence that supports their side, bring it up. If their argument rests on an untrue piece of evidence, talk about the hypothetical case in which they were right. Take their arguments seriously, and make them as good as possible. Because if you can’t respond to that better version, you’ve got some thinking to do, even if you are more right than the person you’re arguing with. Think more deeply than you’re being asked to.
— Chana Messinger: “Knocking Down a Steel Man: How to Argue Better”
