Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 131 posts

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#41

Post by TulliusCicero »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #39
TulliusCicero wrote: post #38

There's two problems I see with steelmanning: 1. People are often not, in fact, arguing in good faith. It's easier to see this if we look at things in hindsight, though sometimes it's super obvious even in the present. One could look at Russian state media on Ukraine as an example where trying to take their arguments at face value would have you contorting yourself into knots. This takes you further from reality, fur…

But... I mean... you're doing steelmanning with your last paragraph! You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is!

Getting a little meta there, man.

I'm demonstrating what would be lost if someone steelmanned me in an actual argument about transportation.

> You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is!

No it isn't? Or at least, that's not how I've understood it. From how I've seen people discuss it, I thought it included avoiding attacking your opponent's weak points, not just engaging them on strong ones. I don't think we should preemptively avoid points within an issue just because our opponent is either weak or strong on them.

I have no problem looking at the good points of my opponents and even acknowledging they have some validity, but I'm not gonna avoid attacking their weak points too.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#42

Post by [deleted] »

blablablerg wrote: post #19

Steelmanning is not the same as agreeing with an argument. According to the article, there can be situations that if you are steelmanning position X, you can be 'strawmanning' position Y. This however is not true. You can always steelman both positions (take the most charitable interpretation of both or multiple sides of the argument even if they contradict each other). Don't confuse agreement with interpretation. As…

[deleted]

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#43

Post by blueflow »

jdrc wrote: post #8

"Do not sympathize too much with jesus because you may turn to one of his followers" I really hate this era of discourse. It's mostly dominated by emotionally-driven americans with juvenile opinions who take twitter and facebook too seriously. A dumbed down elite making dumb meta-arguments using the emotional drivels of the most vocal but equally dumb sample of humans as input data. Meanwhile, european intellectual s…

This is a hot take that will get you upvotes at 9 am UTC and will get you flagged at 3 pm UTC.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#44

Post by noduerme »

This is argument about argumentation, but it's worth examining what's wrong with the overall picture:

Empathy is obviously not empathy if you make a spectacle of bending over backwards to look empathetic. It's an insulting act of selfishness unless the other person feels they've earned it. I think Jesus said something like this, but I can't recall it directly, since I'm drunk.

To be an honest person you have to admit you're essentially selfish at the core first. To be a decent person, you have to acknowledge your feelings of empathy toward others - well, hopefully you have them. Your feelings of selfishness and empathy will always be in tension with each other.[0]

Acknowledging your selfishness means criticizing other people. Acknowledging your empathy means giving them the benefit of the doubt. Being authentic requires the ability to honestly do both in the same breath.

But being authentic/brutally honest with yourself and others, in all cases, is more important than either your own selfishness or your feelings of empathy. It outweighs them by an order of magnitude. That's what's lacking from all this discourse. Because like my mom always said, honesty's the only story that comes out the same twice. Honesty==consistency, consistency==personality, personality==autonomy. Autonomy buys you the grace and latitude to be honest and authentic. That's the virtuous loop.

This meta-discourse about whether it's more FTW to argue dishonestly with strawmen versus steel-manning just makes me go a big rubber one. It's like listening to a dickless academic argue about whether picking up women using PUA techniques should be countered as ineffectual or immoral. The answer is both, and you're a dickless academic who's missing the point.

[0](This is a philosophy I devised when I was 14 years old and stoned as fuck, but now it seems like someone has to say it.)

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#45

Post by quickthrower2 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #36

> “strawman” (argue against your opponent’s weakest point). That's not what a strawman is -- if it was, it wouldn't be considered an informal logical/argumentative fallacy. A strawman means taking your opponent's position to a new extreme, turning it into a caricature of itself. E.g. if they argue for lower taxes, the strawman version could be acting as if they want no taxes whatsoever. It's bad form because it's not…

I thought a strawman was a totally made up position then arguing against it. Which comes off a bit like someone having a fight with themselves. Thinking about it that is more likely on the internet forums like HN where it is easy to just comment without there really being a “conversation”

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#46

Post by TulliusCicero »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #45
TulliusCicero wrote: post #36

> “strawman” (argue against your opponent’s weakest point). That's not what a strawman is -- if it was, it wouldn't be considered an informal logical/argumentative fallacy. A strawman means taking your opponent's position to a new extreme, turning it into a caricature of itself. E.g. if they argue for lower taxes, the strawman version could be acting as if they want no taxes whatsoever. It's bad form because it's not…

I thought a strawman was a totally made up position then arguing against it. Which comes off a bit like someone having a fight with themselves. Thinking about it that is more likely on the internet forums like HN where it is easy to just comment without there really being a “conversation”

It's misrepresenting your opponent's argument, generally by exaggerating it, so that it's easy to argue against.

> Which comes off a bit like someone having a fight with themselves.

Yes, that's basically it. Inventing a related position that your opponent didn't actually take to argue with.

Like if my opponent wants a new tax for more school funding, I could be like, "well when does it end? Are we gonna buy every teacher a BMW by raising taxes 300%? I can't afford that!!" That's a strawman.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#47

Post by jan_Inkepa »

faeriechangling wrote: post #28
blablablerg wrote: post #19

Steelmanning is not the same as agreeing with an argument. According to the article, there can be situations that if you are steelmanning position X, you can be 'strawmanning' position Y. This however is not true. You can always steelman both positions (take the most charitable interpretation of both or multiple sides of the argument even if they contradict each other). Don't confuse agreement with interpretation. As…

I agree the author is massively overthinking this. Steelmanning just means treating your opponent charitably in good faith. If you interpret your opponents beliefs as having absurd outcomes which are gravely insulting to other people, such as believing that all doctors are part of some global conspiracy, than you honestly probably are pretty bad at imagining a good counterargument to your own position. I can come up…

>I agree the author is massively overthinking this. Steelmanning just means treating your opponent charitably in good faith.

I don't mean this to sound pernickety: steelmanning from what I've seen normally is a lot more active than just treating the opponent charitably. Often it involves a lot of work trying to rework the other people's ideas from the ground up. It goes beyond charity in a way that's probably too labour intensive to apply except selectively.

It's interesting to compare with other flavours of charitability:

Take the definition of steelmanning from lesswrong:

> Steelmanning is the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the strongest possible version of it. It is the opposite of strawmanning.

vs. Dennett's recommendation in arguments ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogerian_argument#Dennett's_ve... )

> "You should 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.'"

These mandates aren't exactly the same ( It might be that your strongest way of phrasing an argument wouldn't be accepted by the original argument-giver, for instance), though both could be seen as kinds of charitable engagement.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#48

Post by pdpi »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #41
PoignardAzur wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But... I mean... you're doing steelmanning with your last paragraph! You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is!

Getting a little meta there, man. I'm demonstrating what would be lost if someone steelmanned me in an actual argument about transportation. > You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is! No it isn't? Or at least, that's not how I've understood it. From how I've seen people discuss it, I…

To put steelmanning in software terms: if we’re arguing about what algorithm to use to solve a certain problem, I can assume you’ll work out all the bugs in your implementation (in your example: e.g. getting capacity/speed numbers slightly wrong for some modes of transportation), and focus on the core algorithm instead (e.g. that transitional period is something that definitely needs to be addressed)

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#49

Post by anjbe »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #41
PoignardAzur wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But... I mean... you're doing steelmanning with your last paragraph! You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is!

Getting a little meta there, man. I'm demonstrating what would be lost if someone steelmanned me in an actual argument about transportation. > You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is! No it isn't? Or at least, that's not how I've understood it. From how I've seen people discuss it, I…

> I don't think we should preemptively avoid points within an issue just because our opponent is either weak or strong on them.

When steelmanning, the points avoided are points your opponent never made.

Re: Why I’m skeptical of “steelmanning”

#50

Post by TulliusCicero »

pdpi wrote: post #48
TulliusCicero wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting a little meta there, man. I'm demonstrating what would be lost if someone steelmanned me in an actual argument about transportation. > You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is! No it isn't? Or at least, that's not how I've understood it. From how I've seen people discuss it, I…

To put steelmanning in software terms: if we’re arguing about what algorithm to use to solve a certain problem, I can assume you’ll work out all the bugs in your implementation (in your example: e.g. getting capacity/speed numbers slightly wrong for some modes of transportation), and focus on the core algorithm instead (e.g. that transitional period is something that definitely needs to be addressed)

That's not actually analogous, though, because often the weak points aren't "bugs to be worked out".

For example, take this Parks & Rec clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psi5m4x5aT0

While this lady was courageous enough to be willing to put her bigotry out in the open, for every person like this, there's 10 more locals with similar sentiments who are self-aware enough to not say the quiet part out loud. This is a weak point within NIMBY arguments -- that often they don't want "those people" around, whether that be a matter of race or class -- but it's not merely a bug you can iron out, because it's actually a core motivator for their political position. It has to be, or at least should be addressed.

"Act as if your opponent isn't racist or classist" means partially detaching yourself from the reality of the situation, if the current situation is that they are, in fact, racist or classist.

In other words, steelmanning risks misrepresenting your opponent's actual position -- exactly the same flaw as strawmanning, but in the opposite direction.

Post reply on HN