How engaging with the strongest version of an opposing argument builds a deeper defense than verification alone. A practical guide with a downloadable worksheet.
A lie runs halfway around the world before the truth laces up its sneakers. Fact-checking propaganda (lies) is a fool’s errand.
I like your “steel-manning” approach as a way of engaging in a good-faith debate. I always like to start a conversation with finding something to agree with. Builds trust and openness.
Your essays are terrific, Hana. Your rising stats on this platform are well earned! 👏
The topic of this post should be part of mandatory civics education for every person who is or aspires to be a citizen of the U.S. If every voter used the techniques in Hana's article and worksheet it would profoundly alter the "persuasion architecture" of our politics. Today, almost all political "debate" is a zero-sum performance game focused on making the other side lose so your side can win. This whole game extends from campaigning to get elected to even the naming applied to laws. Effectively our "leaders" have conditioned voters to expect and accept "bumper sticker" slogans and "gotcha" attacks as reasoned political discourse.
Steel-manning would train voters to identify the "architecture" of political arguments and the values driving these arguments. This would make it much harder for monied interests to control the direction of our politics. The problems we are dealing with as a society are far too complex and nuanced for resolution through 30 second attack ads, 2 minute debate responses and "catchy" titles for legislation.
I am forwarding this post to many people. I will be asking them to read and study this post and consider forwarding it to people they know.
Hana, thank you for writing this excellent and important article and accompanying worksheet.
Thank you Hana, what a brilliant article in terms of both theory, practice, and etymology! I actually think that AI can be a really effective way of helping to steel man an argument. This is how I tend to use it to help me better develop my own arguments and encourage me to find alternative viewpoints to my own. 🙏
Hana, you can't simultaneously respond to a charitable interpretation of your opponent’s argument and supply the strongest argument possible for your opponent’s position from your perspective and respond to the best available challenge to your perspective. The methods you are offering promise too much.
The approach with integrity is to respond to a charitable interpretation of your opponent’s position. It is also the traditional approach of informal logic and argumentation, neither straw-manning nor steel-manning but interpreting the offered argument correctly.
In asking clarifying questions about your opponent’s argument, your intent in developing a charitable interpretation is specifically to learn what they intended to communicate. You don't seek out their private opinion that they did not share in their argument.
For example, in a discussion of abortion or women’s right to choose, if the opponent’s argument is that babies should not be aborted in the 3rd trimester, the fact that the opponent believes that life begins at conception has no bearing on their argument, even though they believe it. Instead, you look at the offered argument and the reasons against abortion supplied in the argument. On the other hand, if their offered argument is that abortion should be illegal from conception on, then a discussion with you about whether abortion should occur in the ninth month of pregnancy is a different argument than they are making. Whether it is more or less defensible from their position (in your opinion) than their original argument is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
And of course, you can also assess the inferences made between premises and conclusions for quality, identifying their type (inductive, deductive, analogical), strength, or validity. Framing and facts are not all there is to arguments after all.
The study of law is not well encouraged in our educational system. People refer to “votes” taken in the Supreme Court rather than balancing arguments to see what principles command in the dispute. A good court desires to see “steel man” arguments. I wish we were more savvy.
I appreciate this post; very relevant for our current situation. Well done.
I taught information literacy at the school, typically showing students how to identify credible sources and fact-check information. Through discussions with Social Studies and English teachers, I learned that students typically lacked knowledge of rhetoric and logic, which meant weaker student papers, but also the ability to evaluate what they read, for example, identifying logical fallacies.
This is a brilliant guide. Thanks. Your checklist is a great exercise in learning to combat the sophistry that permeates our info environment, and in the process getting to know our own selves better.
This is really helpful; thank you! I often feel like I’m the only one in my circles who is cautious about AI, everyone just blindly loves it and it makes me so nervous. This post has made me realise I need to be more articulate in my arguments and not be as ideological about them. I’ve already switched to prefacing conversations with examples of where I think AI is useful before sharing my concerns, which I think makes me less annoying to AI enthusiasts, but steelmanning both my arguments and theirs will help me understand more and hopefully be understood better. Thank you!
A lie runs halfway around the world before the truth laces up its sneakers. Fact-checking propaganda (lies) is a fool’s errand.
I like your “steel-manning” approach as a way of engaging in a good-faith debate. I always like to start a conversation with finding something to agree with. Builds trust and openness.
Your essays are terrific, Hana. Your rising stats on this platform are well earned! 👏
Love this, thank you. Civility = steel-manning?
The topic of this post should be part of mandatory civics education for every person who is or aspires to be a citizen of the U.S. If every voter used the techniques in Hana's article and worksheet it would profoundly alter the "persuasion architecture" of our politics. Today, almost all political "debate" is a zero-sum performance game focused on making the other side lose so your side can win. This whole game extends from campaigning to get elected to even the naming applied to laws. Effectively our "leaders" have conditioned voters to expect and accept "bumper sticker" slogans and "gotcha" attacks as reasoned political discourse.
Steel-manning would train voters to identify the "architecture" of political arguments and the values driving these arguments. This would make it much harder for monied interests to control the direction of our politics. The problems we are dealing with as a society are far too complex and nuanced for resolution through 30 second attack ads, 2 minute debate responses and "catchy" titles for legislation.
I am forwarding this post to many people. I will be asking them to read and study this post and consider forwarding it to people they know.
Hana, thank you for writing this excellent and important article and accompanying worksheet.
Thank you Hana, what a brilliant article in terms of both theory, practice, and etymology! I actually think that AI can be a really effective way of helping to steel man an argument. This is how I tend to use it to help me better develop my own arguments and encourage me to find alternative viewpoints to my own. 🙏
Hana, you can't simultaneously respond to a charitable interpretation of your opponent’s argument and supply the strongest argument possible for your opponent’s position from your perspective and respond to the best available challenge to your perspective. The methods you are offering promise too much.
The approach with integrity is to respond to a charitable interpretation of your opponent’s position. It is also the traditional approach of informal logic and argumentation, neither straw-manning nor steel-manning but interpreting the offered argument correctly.
In asking clarifying questions about your opponent’s argument, your intent in developing a charitable interpretation is specifically to learn what they intended to communicate. You don't seek out their private opinion that they did not share in their argument.
For example, in a discussion of abortion or women’s right to choose, if the opponent’s argument is that babies should not be aborted in the 3rd trimester, the fact that the opponent believes that life begins at conception has no bearing on their argument, even though they believe it. Instead, you look at the offered argument and the reasons against abortion supplied in the argument. On the other hand, if their offered argument is that abortion should be illegal from conception on, then a discussion with you about whether abortion should occur in the ninth month of pregnancy is a different argument than they are making. Whether it is more or less defensible from their position (in your opinion) than their original argument is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
And of course, you can also assess the inferences made between premises and conclusions for quality, identifying their type (inductive, deductive, analogical), strength, or validity. Framing and facts are not all there is to arguments after all.
The study of law is not well encouraged in our educational system. People refer to “votes” taken in the Supreme Court rather than balancing arguments to see what principles command in the dispute. A good court desires to see “steel man” arguments. I wish we were more savvy.
I appreciate this post; very relevant for our current situation. Well done.
I taught information literacy at the school, typically showing students how to identify credible sources and fact-check information. Through discussions with Social Studies and English teachers, I learned that students typically lacked knowledge of rhetoric and logic, which meant weaker student papers, but also the ability to evaluate what they read, for example, identifying logical fallacies.
This is very helpful! Thank you!
This is a brilliant guide. Thanks. Your checklist is a great exercise in learning to combat the sophistry that permeates our info environment, and in the process getting to know our own selves better.
This is really helpful; thank you! I often feel like I’m the only one in my circles who is cautious about AI, everyone just blindly loves it and it makes me so nervous. This post has made me realise I need to be more articulate in my arguments and not be as ideological about them. I’ve already switched to prefacing conversations with examples of where I think AI is useful before sharing my concerns, which I think makes me less annoying to AI enthusiasts, but steelmanning both my arguments and theirs will help me understand more and hopefully be understood better. Thank you!
Thank you!