Steelmanning: what it is, and how to use to make better arguments

[ChocolateNecessary91]

Once I came across the idea of steelmanning, I became better aware of strawman arguments and how arguments are always weakened when they lack steelmanning.

Steelmanning can also slow you down before making an argument because you often discover the weakness of your own position. It's not for everyone, but if you have guts give steelmanning a try.

[Spiff]

Once I came across the idea of steelmanning, I became better aware of strawman arguments and how arguments are always weakened when they lack steelmanning.

Steelmanning can also slow you down before making an argument because you often discover the weakness of your own position. It's not for everyone, but if you have guts give steelmanning a try.

So steelmanning looks like it might be a good way to proceed with an argument but I believe there may be something to consider first. That is, to move forward in a debate, at one point the person who puts up the original argument must be happy with the improvements that are being proposed.

For instance, how would one steelman this simple modus ponens towards what may be a satisfactory agreement?

P-1 Earth's climate has been changing since the earth was formed.
P-2 Man has never had any influence over the climate.
C So the notion of man made climate change is a hoax.

[youjustcomplain]

I love the idea of a steelman argument. In order to do it effectively, someone would actually have to listen, understand and be able to accurately represent their opponents position. While doing so, it could actually allow for both parties to, more easily, reach common ground and realize that the topic their debating might be something they partially agree on.

Strawmans are one of the most annoying and intentionally deceptive ways to argue. It only weakens the position of the person using it once it's been revealed.

[Spiff]

I love the idea of a steelman argument. In order to do it effectively, someone would actually have to listen, understand and be able to accurately represent their opponents position. While doing so, it could actually allow for both parties to, more easily, reach common ground and realize that the topic their debating might be something they partially agree on.

Strawmans are one of the most annoying and intentionally deceptive ways to argue. It only weakens the position of the person using it once it's been revealed.

Yes, but you may notice in the video how the bearded steel man character throws out what he thinks is an 'improvement' but never receives any feedback from the other bearded charcter on weather he agrees with it or not. This is not active listening. As you seem to indicate, active listenig would involve paraphrasing as feedback to try to verify or to clarify what the other person means and would receive an approval to build on before moving on. Does that sound about right?

[TylerM4]

Once I came across the idea of steelmanning, I became better aware of strawman arguments and how arguments are always weakened when they lack steelmanning.

Steelmanning can also slow you down before making an argument because you often discover the weakness of your own position. It's not for everyone, but if you have guts give steelmanning a try.

I love it. Straw Man arguments are a big pet peeve of mine and I regularly call them out when I see them.

I've always defined the straw man as "Taking an extreme view of your opponents point/argument and attacking that extreme view vs what they actually proposed." A classic simplified example of straw man in action:
Person A: "Smoking Cannabis in public shouldn't be allowed due to the strong smell"
Person B: "So you think strong smells should be illegal. You're really trying to tell me that road paving should be illegal? That's crazy along with your point/argument".

Most of us reply with "That's not what I was saying, quit putting words in my mouth". The steelman reply would be "Good point. But here's the difference - road work results in a benefit to society and is needed so we can travel. Smoking cannabis in public doesn't benefit anyone except maybe the person smoking it".

The key here is debating vs arguing. From what I've seen: Most threads on castanet and public forums in general have about 25% people who actually want to debate the topic in good faith - the other 75% simply want to argue and "win".

[ChocolateNecessary91]

Once I came across the idea of steelmanning, I became better aware of strawman arguments and how arguments are always weakened when they lack steelmanning.

Steelmanning can also slow you down before making an argument because you often discover the weakness of your own position. It's not for everyone, but if you have guts give steelmanning a try.

I love it. Straw Man arguments are a big pet peeve of mine and I regularly call them out when I see them.

I've always defined the straw man as "Taking an extreme view of your opponents point/argument and attacking that extreme view vs what they actually proposed." A classic simplified example of straw man in action:
Person A: "Smoking Cannabis in public shouldn't be allowed due to the strong smell"
Person B: "So you think strong smells should be illegal. You're really trying to tell me that road paving should be illegal? That's crazy along with your point/argument".

Most of us reply with "That's not what I was saying, quit putting words in my mouth". The steelman reply would be "Good point. But here's the difference - road work results in a benefit to society and is needed so we can travel. Smoking cannabis in public doesn't benefit anyone except maybe the person smoking it".

The key here is debating vs arguing. From what I've seen: Most threads on castanet and public forums in general have about 25% people who actually want to debate the topic in good faith - the other 75% simply want to argue and "win".

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying but it doesn't seem like the example you provide is an example of steelmanning. Steelmanning is restating someone's perspective (even if you don't agree) in the most compelling way possible.

So something like: "It sounds like your argument relates to how the smoking of various substances in public can cause this substance to come into contact with others regardless of their consent. It could even come into contact with someone who could have adverse health effects from being in contact with cannabis smoke or cigarette smoke. Is that right?"

So you take their argument (you may not agree with) and rephrasing to strengthen it even further. Only once this is done, may you proceed with your counter-argument.

Also, I should have mentioned earlier, it really works best if all parties involved agree to this the steelmanning exercise. Hence why discussion forums, social media, chat rooms etc. are poor arenas for healthy debate. They are too random and chaotic. This works best one on one or in small groups of people who know each other.

Also, I find it works best to practice on smaller topics that are less fraught. Going straight to abortion is not best practice. Maybe start with... I don't know, lawn care or something like that.

[TylerM4]

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying but it doesn't seem like the example you provide is an example of steelmanning. Steelmanning is restating someone's perspective (even if you don't agree) in the most compelling way possible.

So something like: "It sounds like your argument relates to how the smoking of various substances in public can cause this substance to come into contact with others regardless of their consent. It could even come into contact with someone who could have adverse health effects from being in contact with cannabis smoke or cigarette smoke. Is that right?"

So you take their argument (you may not agree with) and rephrasing to strengthen it even further. Only once this is done, may you proceed with your counter-argument.

Also, I should have mentioned earlier, it really works best if all parties involved agree to this the steelmanning exercise. Hence why discussion forums, social media, chat rooms etc. are poor arenas for healthy debate. They are too random and chaotic. This works best one on one or in small groups of people who know each other.

Also, I find it works best to practice on smaller topics that are less fraught. Going straight to abortion is not best practice. Maybe start with... I don't know, lawn care or something like that.

Gonna take some practice to get good at it and I think you're right ;) My interpretation is that steelmaning should be done as a response to a straw man. In my example, the straw man was Person B's response - whereas it appears you've proposed a steelman response to Person A's statement.

Having said that - I think you're right, what I posted as what the steelman response to Person B's straw man isn't a good example.

How about this instead:
Person A (initial statement): "Smoking Cannabis in public shouldn't be allowed due to the strong smell"
Person B (Straw Man): "So you think strong smells should be illegal. You're really trying to tell me that road paving should be illegal? That's crazy along with your point/argument".
Person A (steel man): Yes good point. There are times when strong odors in public should be tolerated and allowed. Perhaps we can define those situations to better clarify when strong smells are acceptable and when they aren't. Would it be better to say "Strong smells in public shouldn't be allowed unless the smell is associated with an activity that results in a benefit to the public such as road work"?

As you can probably tell, I'm trying to keep the language less "fancy" than used in the video examples as I think many won't relate to that way of communicating via message forums.

[ChocolateNecessary91]

Ok right, yes I see what you mean. I think my confusion stems from my opinion that steelmanning is only useful if all parties are agreed to engage in it. If one party strawmans, the other party steelmanning will probably just end in frustration. I may be wrong. But that's where I'm at with this in general.

[Spiff]

Try steelmanning to build on strawman arguments by finding, reading, posting, and then consulting and quoting from original materials.

[ChocolateNecessary91]

-----------------------ignore.... posting mistakenly=----------------------------------

[Spiff]

Try steelmanning to build on strawman arguments by finding, reading, posting, and then consulting and quoting from original materials.

. . .

For instance, how would one steelman this simple modus ponens towards what may be a satisfactory agreement?

P-1 Earth's climate has been changing since the earth was formed.
P-2 Man has never had any influence over the climate.
C So the notion of man made climate change is a hoax.

As I have in the past, one could search this out as a source to start.

https://www.alberta.ca/climate-change-alberta.aspx

Although, the reaction has usually been a walkaway

[fluffy]

Steelmanning, strawmanning…are these not simply alternatives to clearly presenting a well researched and clearly thought out argument in the first place ?

[Spiff]

Steelmanning, strawmanning…are these not simply alternatives to clearly presenting a well researched and clearly thought out argument in the first place ?

I agree, as in what I posted above.

However, if I may . . ..

. . .

Steelmanning can also slow you down before making an argument because you often discover the weakness of your own position. . . .

[Fancy]

Steelmanning, strawmanning…are these not simply alternatives to clearly presenting a well researched and clearly thought out argument in the first place ?

I read the Wikipedia definition of steelmanning. Can’t say I’ve ever heard of it before but you make an interesting point. So steelmanning is taking another viewpoint and making a strong argument? Brings me back to debate classes.

[ChocolateNecessary91]

Steelmanning, strawmanning…are these not simply alternatives to clearly presenting a well researched and clearly thought out argument in the first place ?

If you want to put together a well thought out argument, steelmanning is a tool that can help you achieve that.