81–90 of 131 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 lab…
Steelmanning takes resources you're essentially donating to the opposition's view in the pursuit of forward progress, it's in a very literal sense charity.
The body of the article indicates the author simply doesn't want steelmanning to provide a negative incentive to present a more complete argument even if parts of it are not as strong as others. It seems reasonable that this should be avoided, but also an extremely small concern:
If people are streelmannig you, then pretty much by definition they are not going to dismiss your entire argument just because a part of it isn't as strong. If premises $A and $B are sufficient to support claim $F then presenting weaker premises $C and $D take away nothing at all while still adding some small value.
I just don't see how this is at all an issue for a group of people already engaging in productive discussion techniques. And if a reader/audience is not, then they're not going to steel man you to begin with, so it's a moot issue.
The examples provided where an argumenter "paints themselves into a corner" are example where the argumenter did a poor job of trying to make a counter claim, in one case engaging in their own strawman argument. That's on them, not the principle of charity.
And what's the alternative? The author says "take a step backward, look at what your saying to see if it makes sense." Which seems trivially obvious to the point of not really needing to be stated It applies as a general rule.
It just seems like there's really not much of an issue here, and could instead be summed up with a single statement: Don't allow steelmanning to don't descend into commiting fallacies of your own.
The title & subtitle don't seem to match the content. The body of the article indicates the author simply doesn't want steelmanning to provide a negative incentive to present a more complete argument even if parts of it are not as strong as others. It seems reasonable that this should be avoided, but also an extremely small concern: If people are streelmannig you, then pretty much by definition they are not going to…
The title & subtitle don't seem to match the content. The body of the article indicates the author simply doesn't want steelmanning to provide a negative incentive to present a more complete argument even if parts of it are not as strong as others. It seems reasonable that this should be avoided, but also an extremely small concern: If people are streelmannig you, then pretty much by definition they are not going to…
I am gonna steelsraw this and make a point that the author is simply arguing for benefits of intolerance when dogmas misalign which maybe good or bad and depends entirely on one’s commitment to her dogmas
Neither of these are specifically or inherently the product of steelmanning. Poor arguments can occur while using any discussion technique, and I don't see anything special about the principle of charity that requires people to be warned off of it in any way. "Don't make poor arguments while trying to understand the counter claim" seems perfectly sufficient without going to these lengths & recommend skepticism of steelmanning in general.
Trying to "steelman" a position you don't know the real arguments for is to "strawman" it with good intentions. How about asking people who actually hold the position who the best advocates for it are, and listen to them? This pretending at fairly representing an idea you disagree with is more about signaling, feigning objectivity, and ego stroking than an earnest attempt to grapple with the idea.
To better understand your point, I'd like to know what you think steelmanning is. Can I ask, why do you think steelmanning doesn't involve asking and listening? (see how easy it can be)
The meaning of the term is not in dispute. Rhetorical questions about definitions are not clever.
EDIT - typo fixed.
Honestly I see "steelmanning" as an emergent property of a completely broken discourse in the first place. The whole concept derives from the idea that we need specific terminology for when we're going to actually discuss things in a reasonable manner. It's basically a response to a group of public intellectuals who have emerged on the internet that spend more time building their brand and dunking on their opponents…
The idea of understanding your opponent’s arguments/beliefs better than they do is a centuries old technique.
Honestly I see "steelmanning" as an emergent property of a completely broken discourse in the first place. The whole concept derives from the idea that we need specific terminology for when we're going to actually discuss things in a reasonable manner. It's basically a response to a group of public intellectuals who have emerged on the internet that spend more time building their brand and dunking on their opponents…
> It also stems from a kind of silly idea that the things we disagree over boil down to finding logical errors in each others positions, rather than emerging from deep-rooted differences in values I lived with the same roommate for 3 years in university who was across the isle from me. We had many long conversations and I would say that ~70% of our differences in opinion boiled down to having different values.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 lab…
It is easier to treat steelmanning as a hazy middle ground and pick examples that clearly are or clearly aren't. Eg, the strongest pro-ivermectin argument was "There is all this evidence that lots of people who take ivermectin have much better outcomes after COVID. We should let people take ivermectin". Scott Alexander was literally the first person I saw to acknowledge the evidence before arguing against taking iver…
It’s honestly one of the most kind blowing instances of alternative thinking that is out there, this constant shifting of the goalposts in the pursuit of freedom from the big pharma conspiracy and the evils of fauci. Like, we have perfectly good evidence that this whole conspiracy is bunk, because we have an example of the exact same thing (a generic, cheap as chips medication that markedly improved survival with severe covid - steroids) but actually backed by good quality studies and not some alternative paper mill