[HN Gopher] Steelmanning: Discover the truth by helping your opp...
___________________________________________________________________
Steelmanning: Discover the truth by helping your opponent
Author : kjhughes
Score : 252 points
Date : 2022-06-30 23:52 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (themindcollection.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (themindcollection.com)
| anothernewdude wrote:
| I feel like referring to them as an opponent isn't helping
| matters.
| yk wrote:
| Steelmanning is one of the ideas that sounds good in principle,
| but is usually a disaster in practice. In practice the only way
| I've ever seen it used was by building a straw man and then very
| loudly proclaiming that they're "steelmanning" while exploiting
| the second most stupid design flaw of the straw man.
|
| Closely related, point two "Help to fix your opponents argument,"
| apart from being inherently escalatory, there is a pretty good
| chance that your opponent just made the argument like it is
| supposed to be and you're just not understanding it.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| If your point here is that arguing against the best version of
| someone's argument leads you to tackle their more credible
| claims, then I don't see the problem. It sounds like at worst,
| that might elevate a discussion a bit.
|
| I've seen this approach in some oxford style debates and
| thought it made the debate better, as a viewer.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Not all types of argument deserve this treatment.
| avindroth wrote:
| True, but some of your best insights come from steelmanning
| arguments you initially thought were completely bogus.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Sounds like steelmanning is just another name for thinking
| things all the way through, then?
| scifibestfi wrote:
| How do you know until you steelman it?
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Why don't you steelman me and find out.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Afraid you might change your mind?
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| No, I'm experienced enough to recognize a
| dishonest/disingenuous argument from the start and while I
| might pay it a little bit of lip service, I'm not seriously
| entertaining certain categories of conversation or
| argumentation.
| MattRix wrote:
| It is not hard to think of examples where steelmanning would
| not be worthwhile, such as when someone thinks an entire
| group of people is inferior. And unfortunately these types of
| views underly a surprisingly large number of political
| opinions these days.
| icelancer wrote:
| >> such as when someone thinks an entire group of people is
| inferior
|
| A point of steelmanning is that your assumption that this
| person thinks an entire group of people is inferior might
| be incorrect.
| watwut wrote:
| It feels good to be superior. And people really really
| like theries that make them feel superior. They also
| really really dislike walking away from then, catching
| any straws to be able to keep that feeling.
|
| Your grand plan will fail the moment you finally get to
| the "incorrect" part. Cause there you dealing with
| additional feeling of loss you yourself just caused.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Again, are you afraid you might change your mind?
|
| I like to think I have a pretty good idea of why people -
| whose ideas I find repulsive - believe what they do.
|
| In my mind that means I have the capability to change their
| mind. The risk I take is that they can change mine.
| XorNot wrote:
| Why are _you_ up and down this thread defending a
| technique while refusing to ever enunciate a single
| position you think you understand, or have had your mind
| changed on?
|
| Afraid there might be some really good reasons they're
| not worth talking about?
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Because of comments like this, basically.
| hitekker wrote:
| Ironically, I haven't seen steelmanning demonstrated well
| in this comment section. Lots of praise, specious
| examples. The top comment claims that a heated back-and-
| forth where they recommend steelmanning is a successful
| discussion. Hmmm.
|
| Steelmanning in practice may just be indistinguishable
| from trolling. The lazy redditor wants to look smarter
| than other redditors, by making a convoluted argument
| that no one believes in. It's intellectual posturing
| dressed up in "good faith".
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| You seem to have confused contrarianism with
| steelmanning.
| apostacy wrote:
| You don't engage in Steelmanning to be nice. It is for your
| benefit.
|
| Demonstrating that you fully understand an argument better than
| your opponent, and being able to charitably represent them,
| just makes it all the more devastating when you knock them
| down.
|
| If you really disagree with an argument vehemently, then you
| should steelman it. Strawmanning makes you look dishonest and
| fragile, only capable of attacking a weakened form of your
| opposition.
|
| If someone who has really abhorrent opinions tries making their
| argument, then you are letting them win if you strawman them.
| watwut wrote:
| That is not how debates work at all.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| I do not think anyone will disagree with you. I don't think
| debates are about communication, but I think some people
| here might be trying to address communication tactics.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| If you're so convinced that steelmanning is for the great
| benefit of everyone then why are you arguing with me instead
| of steelmanning my perspective? Or is not every position
| worthy of steelmanning?
| ameminator wrote:
| I don't find modern debate useful. I found myself with more
| "intellectual stakes" in an argument. In good faith, I would be
| more willing and able to change my mind or conclusions based on
| facts or good points made. Rather than make me more informed, it
| only served to weaken the side I presented in an argument, as the
| other sides of the debate would _not_ argue in an equivalently
| good-faith. In hindsight, I would identify some fallacy or point
| I didn't consider - usually well after the debate had ended,
| meaning I didn't even benefit from the good-faith approach that I
| took.
|
| Nowadays, I try to read as much as I can and come to my own
| conclusions in quiet contemplation. The debate was merely a
| distraction from my real goal of improved understanding. In that
| context, I don't have any expectations on debating at all, let
| alone using a rhetorical technique like steelmanning.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| Is it really likely that you can make a better case for the views
| of your opponents then they themselves? Is attempting that from
| scratch a better use of your time then reading the actual
| arguments that your opponents have? It seems to me that
| steelmanning often serves as an excuse to avoid that.
| gregwebs wrote:
| There is an assumption in this article and many of the critiques
| in the comments that steelmanning is primarily useful for
| debating someone else. But debating is usually a trap where
| neither side achieves much. steelmanning is useful for having an
| actual conversation and to remind you in the words of Benjamin
| Franklin to "consult not contend".
|
| For me, most of the value of steelmanning is internal:
| questioning beliefs by dropping them and making the case for both
| sides. And when you find someone else doing this in their writing
| (for example Lyn Alden), you know you have found a useful source
| of information.
| infologics wrote:
| verdagon wrote:
| This technique really changed the way I engage with others' ideas
| [0], the way I approach language design [1], and even my
| relationships. It's so easy for us humans to get caught in a "me
| vs. you" mentality, but steel-manning really helps break out of
| that pattern and meaningfully connect with what others are
| saying.
|
| It also unlocks the next level of rationality: the ability to
| admit you're wrong. After that one just needs to learn to
| actively test their own beliefs, and they can harness the true
| powers of the human mind.
|
| My favorite snippet from Harry Potter and the Methods of
| Rationality: [2]
|
| "But make no mistake, Draco, true science really isn't like
| magic, you can't just do it and walk away unchanged like learning
| how to say the words of a new spell. The power comes with a cost,
| a cost so high that most people refuse to pay it."
|
| Draco nodded at this as though, finally, he'd heard something he
| could understand. "And that cost?"
|
| "Learning to admit you're wrong."
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31937109
|
| [1] https://vale.dev/
|
| [2] https://www.hpmor.com/chapter/7
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| HPMoR is a national treasure. If, as a Harry Potter and science
| fan, you ever find yourself with a few days free to read
| something ridiculous yet insanely entertaining, give it a go.
| stormdennis wrote:
| "You cannot always be right. You should try being wrong
| sometime, because you might learn something." -Johnny Depp
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| And now I am going to have to re-read that masterpiece... le
| sigh
| verdagon wrote:
| Definitely a masterpiece! I love this series. It's a
| wonderful blend of Ender's Game, cognitive science, and
| wizardly tomfoolery.
|
| Readers loved it so much that an entire cast of volunteers
| banded together as voice actors to make an audiobook podcast
| out of it. [0]
|
| Then, so many people listened to that and loved it, that
| folks even did an analysis podcast talking about the story
| chapter by chapter! [1]
|
| And then, people did an analysis podcast of the analysis
| podcast! [2]
|
| Anyone who hasn't read or listen to HPMoR should definitely
| give it a try.
|
| [0] https://hpmorpodcast.com/
|
| [1] https://hpmorpodcast.com/?p=2336
|
| [2] https://www.patreon.com/posts/meta-mor-1-34064648
| at_compile_time wrote:
| Oh my god, I'm so glad this is a thing. I stumbled on HPMoR
| last summer and marathoned the whole thing.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| I love the original podcast and voices (and musical
| choices). There's another new audiobook version coming out
| chapter-by-chapter with a new narrator, which is also
| turning out quite well.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Hopefully some day we'll have voice emulation so good
| that it can do convincing voice acting. I'd love these in
| the voice of Benedict Cumberbatch.
| Emma_Goldman wrote:
| >"But steel-manning really helps break out of that pattern and
| meaningfully connect with what others are saying."
|
| Steelmanning means that you ignore the argument your
| interlocuter makes, in favour of the argument you think they
| should have made. It runs diametrically counter to trying to
| 'meaningfully connect with what others are saying'.
|
| If someone says 'X because Y', and you respond 'I think you
| mean X because Z but that's wrong', you have simply spoken past
| your interlocuter. Perhaps they actually meant 'X because Y2',
| but you didn't give them time to expand upon what '2' is. Or
| perhaps there's some other subtlety or depth that they have yet
| to expatiate.
|
| There are lots of associated problems:
|
| 1. It is very difficult to say what a different version of the
| 'same' argument is. Perhaps you reason from different premises
| to the same conclusion. Perhaps you reason from the same
| premise to a better conclusion. Perhaps you use a similar style
| or tradition of argument. Really, only your interlocuter knows
| what 'their' argument is.
|
| 2. What you think is the strongest version of an argument is,
| may not be what a second or third person thinks the strongest
| argument is. In some realms - moral and political - there are
| no mind-independent facts in reference to which one argument
| can be objectively justified over another. 'Strongest' is
| therefore relative.
|
| 3. If you default to talking about an argument your opponent
| did not make, that is liable to create enormous confusion. If
| they did the same thing, you would end up never actually
| talking to one another. It would be like Chinese whispers, each
| rationally reconstructing the other's last statement.
|
| What you really want to do is both 'interpret and understand'
| another's point of view, and then argue it through. The OP's
| link actually does a pretty good job of describing just that,
| but I think describing that as 'steelmannanning' is a misnomer.
| It's just philosophy as it has been understood for millennia.
| Steelmanning is supposed to be something more original.
|
| Looking it up, this is claimed to be the original coinage of
| the word:
|
| 'Then we would be steelmanning, the art of addressing the best
| form of the other person's argument, even if it's not the one
| they presented.'[1]
|
| [1]
| https://themerelyreal.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/steelmanning/
| theelous3 wrote:
| I strongly disagree with this interpretation. To the strength
| of your claims, the steelmanner is more engaging with
| themselves rather than the other person. Imagine a chess
| player playing both sides.
|
| This of course isn't what steelmanning looks like. It's
| simply an extension of good faith. The other person needs to
| be there and needs to have their personal claims and beliefs
| represented in the steelman.
|
| The most common steelman tactic is, after your opponent
| finishes a point, saying something to the effect of "Just so
| we're on the level, I'm going to restate what I believe your
| argument is and you can correct me if I've misinterpreted
| something".
|
| Then you restate a summary of the argument in your own words
| and in good faith, bolstering it or lending structure where
| needed, or perhaps adding an obvious missing caveat. Then the
| person has a chance to correct you. They can kick out any
| supports they don't want you to add or recind any caveats.
|
| From there, you can progress.
|
| This is what steelmanning looks like. The form of an argument
| and the crux of it are not the same. It's good faith to
| interpret the form favourably.
|
| Even in the most poorly stated arguments the core concept can
| be derived. You can give the person a better path to this
| central idea so as to ignore time waste arguments about the
| route, and instead attack that core idea.
|
| You've ironically painted a hollow and one dimensional view
| of steelmanning.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> you restate a summary of the argument in your own words
| and in good faith, bolstering it or lending structure where
| needed [...] Then the person has a chance to correct you._
|
| Where are y'all seeing these debates actually happen?
|
| I always assumed steelmanning was a process you conduct
| entirely in your mind, while deciding your opinion or
| writing your editorial.
| jameshart wrote:
| Did you just... strawman the concept of steelmanning?
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| They did, and they did it by conflating steelmanning with
| strawmanning
| zimbatm wrote:
| > Steelmanning means that you ignore the argument your
| interlocuter makes, in favour of the argument you think they
| should have made. It runs diametrically counter to trying to
| 'meaningfully connect with what others are saying'.
|
| That's not quite steelmanning.
|
| Steelmanning means that you rephrase the argument your
| interlocuter makes, with your own words, until _they_ agree
| that it 's the same or close enough. That's what creates the
| connection.
|
| The agreement is the important distinction and what creates
| the connection. Even if you disagree, at least there is a
| level of respect that comes from hearing the person out and
| not misrepresenting their point.
|
| Your definition is quite close but is skipping that last step
| that makes all the difference.
| feintruled wrote:
| Thanks for the clarification. I recently read of
| steelmanning too by coincidence and have been fascinated
| with how it might work in practice.
|
| I think it also means you should assume good faith too,
| right? So if someone says they are anti-abortion but pro-
| death penalty (for example) you don't jump on the hypocrisy
| as you see it but say "I see, so for you there is some
| material difference between the life of an unborn child and
| the life of a convict." When put this way it is easy to see
| where the other person's rationale is coming from.
|
| I guess it like the Socractic method (except a little less
| confrontational) in which you restate the opponents
| statements in terms they can agree with, then follow up
| with questions exploring that until you trap them in a
| contradiction even they are forced to recognise.
| watwut wrote:
| > I see, so for you there is some material difference
| between the life of an unborn child and the life of a
| convict.
|
| Pro abortion position is that unborn fetus is not a
| child. You are conceding pretty large point when you are
| framing it like this.
| feintruled wrote:
| Well, that's what they think isn't it? That's what I
| understand the steelmanning technique to be. Frame the
| argument as best you can in the way they see it, then you
| discover the assumptions that led them to their
| conclusion.
| wl wrote:
| That's certainly one pro-abortion position, but not the
| only one.
|
| The more general position is that whatever interests a
| fetus may or may not have to continued life is outweighed
| by the bodily autonomy interests of the mother in a given
| scenario. The Violinist Argument is a classic thought
| experiment that argues even if the continued life in
| question belongs to fully-grown adult human who happens
| to be a world-class artist, bodily autonomy _still_ wins.
| throwawaygal7 wrote:
| Generally, pro life people arent going to find the
| violinists argument forceful: 1) the violinist is framed
| as being particularly valuable due to their talent, this
| is not a shared assumption between the two camps, and
| even if it was - every baby is a potential violinist.
|
| 2) the violinist is not offspring, and there is no
| parent-child relationship
|
| 3) extraordinary means were and are required to maintain
| the violinist, this is unlike a pregnancy - where
| extraordinary means are required to end it.
| feet wrote:
| Things in the realm of anti abortion and pro death
| penalty break down when you get down to the root of
| things, which is free will and innocence of the unborn
| soul
|
| From my understanding that's what is behind both of these
| ideologies, and both of those things are 100% made up
| fiction
|
| There is literally no evidence for an immaterial soul and
| there is actually evidence that free will is an illusion,
| but the people who believe things things have their
| beliefs rooted in religion
| Karunamon wrote:
| Your understanding misses that there are secular and
| philosophical arguments to be made against both of those
| things, no need to invoke religion or go on an antitheist
| tirade.
| feet wrote:
| Well philosophical arguments aren't based on evidence
| from what I've seen, so we can reject those right away
|
| What are the secular arguments?
| NateEag wrote:
| > Things in the realm of anti abortion and pro death
| penalty break down when you get down to the root of
| things, which is free will and innocence of the unborn
| soul
|
| ...no?
|
| The essential point of steelmanning is understanding your
| opponent's perspective, perhaps even finding a better
| argument for it than they have, even if you disagree with
| them.
|
| It's perfectly possible to do that even if you think
| their position is nonsense.
|
| Sometimes you may even find that your perception of their
| arguments and ideas is incorrect.
|
| > There is literally no evidence for an immaterial soul
|
| There's no hard evidence, but there are things that are,
| let's say, weird. The hard problem of consciousness is
| one, and the steady trickle of reports of veridical
| observations from medical staff treating unconscious NDE
| patients is another. For that matter, NDEs themselves are
| odd in absentia the supernatural.
|
| I don't expect people to grant souls or the supernatural
| based on those things, but they're certainly observed
| phenomena that some people interpret as evidence for
| those things.
|
| > there is actually evidence that free will is an
| illusion
|
| If you're referring to Libet's analysis of the
| Bereitschaftspotential experiments, there has been some
| acceptance in the past few years that this paper shows he
| misinterpreted the data:
|
| https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210467109
|
| Popular summary of the debate in The Atlantic:
|
| https://archive.ph/SHH0p
|
| If you're referring to other evidence, I'd love to know
| what it is.
| feet wrote:
| Consciousness is the experience if processing
| information, there is no reason to believe its anything
| more than that
|
| There are also other studies besides the Libet ones, more
| recent ones using things like fMRI and _in vivo_
| electrophysiology in awake human patients.
|
| If we think about how neurons and their networks
| function, there isn't a mechanism in the realm of
| biophysics that allows for nondeterminism. That alone
| precludes the possibility of what people classically
| think of as free will. I've had discussions with other
| neuroscientists about this and they came to the same
| conclusion.
|
| Just because something seems "weird" doesn't actually
| mean anything and its likely the person's perception of
| the situation that instills that feeling.
|
| Near death experiences are entirely subjective, again its
| perception and information processing. The brain is great
| at connecting concepts and generating ideas even while
| we're unconscious. Its not like we stop processing
| sensory information when we aren't active.
|
| As someone who studies behavioral neuroscience, I would
| _never_ use an NDE itself as evidence of _anything_
| besides the fact that it is a phenomena that happens
| sometimes
|
| There is a decent overview on wikipedia, they do discuss
| criticisms as well:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
|
| As a side note, I don't think that paper on pnas
| concludes what you think it does. They state that a
| stochastic model could account for the buildup, in
| reality the stochastic model is simulating the chaotic
| environment of biochemistry. That environment is still
| deterministic and we absolutely could predict the entire
| system if we are able to simulate all of the variables.
|
| Neurons are complex, but no matter how you slice it they
| are still a deterministic system
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| Andrew Gelman offered a brief, mild critique of steelmanning
| [1] which you may find worth reading.
|
| [1] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/04/28/the-
| challe...
| jrumbut wrote:
| There seems to be two subtly different definitions of steel
| manning.
|
| The first one, and the one I think should always be done, is
| to engage with the best argument that has actually been
| presented by someone holding the opposing view.
|
| The second version, and this one I don't fully understand,
| seems to involve defining your own strongest argument for the
| other view.
|
| This version, in my experience, can go a few directions. Most
| often it turns into a more elaborate version of strawmanning
| ("and so we see, even with this strongest possible argument
| it still fails!"). It can also be a way toward compromise
| ("so if you're right, this much more limited form of my
| proposal still has value"). Or it can go to talking past each
| other (refuting vegetarianism without touching on the
| suffering of animals because you don't care about that, but
| many vegetarians do).
|
| The first version is a requisite for truly debating rather
| than sloganeering. The second version is a mixed bag.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I think the second form is supposed to be a superset; you
| try to find all the best arguments you can for every
| position. That includes the ones other people are using,
| but if you can think of a better case to make for them then
| you should answer that as well. In no event should you ever
| say "you're arguing X but Y is a better argument and that's
| false so you're wrong" without _also_ answering X, but
| "you're arguing X, which is wrong because X', but a better
| argument for your position is Y" is still legitimate.
| dwringer wrote:
| I think you've nailed why I've always felt slightly
| uncomfortable with "steelmanning" and I vastly prefer the
| alternative mentioned in the above rebuttal, "benefit of
| the doubt". So often "steelmanning" is indeed just another
| form of strawman, because at some level it's usually easy
| to misunderstand the perspective from which someone else is
| arguing (often the whole reason for getting into a heated
| debate in the first place). Giving someone the benefit of
| the doubt doesn't require any (possibly false) projection
| of having mutual understanding, but simply an attitude that
| "I may not understand it, but your argument is probably
| just as valid as mine". IMHO the real way to oppose the
| strawman fallacy or any other is simply to argue coherently
| in good faith, not to adopt a new potential fallacy on
| principle.
| [deleted]
| verdagon wrote:
| A good read, thanks for the link.
|
| I think I'd disagree with his take on steelmanning though. He
| seems to think that in steelmanning, you need to assume the
| same assumptions as your opponent, thus precluding alternate
| possibilities.
|
| But, in steelmanning, you need to ask the opposing side if
| your understanding of their point is correct, and also list
| out all the assumptions made along the way to get to that
| claim.
|
| Once the assumptions are spoken out loud, it's easy to
| identify and focus on the first branch of disagreement. It
| saves a lot of time. That's the true power of steelmanning a
| hostile opponent.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| I agree with your assessment, but if your opponent is truly
| hostile it's not going to work. One person steelmanning and
| the other person strawmanning has a tendency to suffer from
| the same problem as always: to a superficially interested
| or poorly educated audience, defending against strawmen
| looks weak.
| icedchocolate wrote:
| I couldn't agree more, well said
| jbay808 wrote:
| As I commented when that article was posted to HN last
| time[1], it's important to recognize that there is an
| important distinction between _accepting_ an argument and
| _contemplating_ it as a hypothetical.
|
| As long as one is able to maintain this distinction --
| something most mature individuals should be perfectly capable
| of -- I think Andrew Gelman's criticism falls short.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31244792
| bordercases wrote:
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| I think the "mature individuals" part precludes the
| possibility of even contemplating the position of others,
| for most people. I may be wrong though.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| This; it's been one of the biggest disappointments in my
| adult life to realize how many legal adults are so
| incredibly immature, with such inflated yet fragile egos,
| that merely apologizing to even someone in their own
| family is totally out of the question. Another is
| realizing how many people are so willfully ignorant yet
| dogmatic. I had some suspicions growing up, and even into
| my twenties I was still quite naive. Being surrounded by
| nerdy friends who were also generally professionals in a
| technical field definitely insulated me from the general
| public enough that it took another decade for it to
| really sink in. These days it just all feels a bit lonely
| (especially with COVID), but the spark of meeting kindred
| spirits still makes it worth it to attempt to have a
| social life. True friends are rare.
| yetihehe wrote:
| > how many legal adults are so incredibly immature
|
| Yeah, some of us are like that. I think I've finally
| matured at about 30-34, now I'm 38 but still learning.
| watwut wrote:
| I think that you use "maturity" to mean "being perfect
| person" or term of approval rather then anything having
| to do with actual maturity.
| bdefore wrote:
| It's a problematic word. Barring death or a rare physical
| condition, all human children biologically reach
| maturity. The colloquialism of 'mature' (or as the
| opposite of 'immature') varies notoriously person to
| person, to the point one could argue that it's immature
| to use it sincerely in debate.
| Dudeman112 wrote:
| I agree on it being a problematic word
|
| As far as I am concerned, if one actually cares about the
| debate they should just replace "mature" for what they
| think it means or implies for the behaviour of the
| individual
|
| Replacing the symbol for a definition is quite handy.
| People get all defensive over being called privileged,
| but change "privileged" for "having good circumstances" (
| or similar ) and they don't feel called out for it
| despite having the same meaning
|
| IMO it's something of a shame how much the human
| cognition is crap at that kind of stuff
| [deleted]
| bena wrote:
| I think he's confusing accepting a conclusion with accepting
| a premise. Which is what steelmanning is supposed to be,
| granting your opposition a premise and then pointing out why
| even in that scenario, why their conclusion is still wrong.
| Or maybe it's not. In which case, you need to
| investigate/challenge the premise.
|
| And then there's the issue that for some people, they just
| don't want to be reached. They want to believe a specific way
| on a specific issue for whatever personal reasons. You can't
| steelman crazy.
|
| And let's not forget, steelmanning isn't about others, it's
| about yourself. It's about trying to find out if you _are_
| wrong.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| > You can't steelman crazy.
|
| THANK you.
|
| I still can't rightly tell the difference between (the most
| generous definition of) steelmanning and just thinking
| things all the way through in a balanced way.
| keithnz wrote:
| he seems to present it as giving the "benefit of the doubt",
| but that's not correct. What you are doing is trying to make
| the best version of the argument before critiquing it. This
| avoids strawman type situations. It doesn't mean discarding
| weak arguments, but you may end up dropping weak parts of the
| argument that aren't necessary to the central argument.
| Basically it try's to avoid needless back and forth that
| doesn't really address actual argument at hand.
| [deleted]
| kieckerjan wrote:
| I am a bit puzzled that learning to admit that you are wrong is
| sometimes treated as attaining some kind of superpower. I would
| say it is just part of growing up. (Having said that, some
| people seem to never grow up.)
| bdefore wrote:
| What is growing up?
| Psyladine wrote:
| Realizing how pointless all of this is, for one.
| roenxi wrote:
| "This is true" and "Let us imagine that this is true" are
| radically, radically different positions. People who have a
| nuanced enough understanding to separate the two in an
| argument are rare.
|
| Entertaining the even more nuanced idea that someone else has
| a strong argument that is wrong is, effectively, a
| superpower. Not many people who are willing to argue can do
| that. Especially if they are capable of doing that in a
| persuasive, public fashion.
| swayvil wrote:
| >"This is true" and "Let us imagine that this is true" are
| radically, radically different positions.
|
| What's the difference? Unintentional pretence vs
| intentional pretence? Strong imagining vs weak imagining?
|
| Both make an assertion. Both assign a degree of confidence.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| The second isn't an assertion, it's a hypothetical.
|
| Eg, "let's imagine that elves are real" is distinct from
| "elves are real".
| swayvil wrote:
| It's a confidence-modulated assertion. Hypothesis is low
| confidence. Fact is high confidence.
|
| There is no magic point at which hypothesis suddenly
| becomes fact. It's simply a matter of confidence.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| It's confidence independent:
|
| "Let X" is a context bound hypothetical -- we're assuming
| it is true within some argument; we have perfect
| confidence in the hypothetical, but only within that
| context.
|
| That's distinct from an assertion, which is a statement
| about how the world is with some associated confidence.
| Riverheart wrote:
| "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to
| entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle
|
| Not confidence, acceptance.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| It's not about admitting that you're wrong. It's about
| discovering what the right answer is without being swayed
| towards the thing you previously thought/said.
|
| To be in a position to _admit_ that you're wrong you've
| already got to be trying to argue that you're right.
| swayvil wrote:
| Given that the method of engineering generally starts with
| something like, "These various assertions and principals may
| be taken as gospel". So admitting you might be wrong is like
| reversing gospel. And reversing gospel is quite a feat.
|
| And HN is filled with engineers.
| feet wrote:
| There's also the consideration that literal religious
| gospel is taken as fact by some people who use that
| assumption to push particular ideas in government and law
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| I couldn't invent a more suckass attitude for engineers to
| hold, but it is indeed common. I find it less common among
| _really good_ engineers. YMMV.
| aaron695 wrote:
| andrewclunn wrote:
| The real problem with "steelmanning" is that not so clever people
| (who think they are oh so clever) believe they are capable of
| representing a position they do not hold. Perhaps seeking out
| others who actually advocate for the position (which you are
| attempting to steelman) and listening to their arguments would be
| better, but it doesn't stroke the ego in the same way, or allow
| arm-chair internet philosophers to make the same bold claims at
| objectivity.
| hhmc wrote:
| > Perhaps seeking out others who actually advocate for the
| position
|
| This isn't practical mid-argument though, is it?
| ip26 wrote:
| Aren't you by definition speaking to one at that very second?
| hhmc wrote:
| If that's sufficient, then I don't really understand what
| the point being made is.
| eslaught wrote:
| There's a danger, while steelmanning, that you might come up with
| an argument that sounds good _to you_ , but it's actually weaker
| to the opposition. Therefore, while trying to steelman their
| argument, you actually fill it with holes.
|
| This can happen because you don't understand it deeply enough,
| but it can also happen because of a difference in values. This is
| why I think steelmanning is difficult, and frankly a little
| dangerous. To _truly_ do it, you have to embed yourself not just
| in their rational thought but also in their worldview.
|
| And I really mean the part about it being dangerous. In all
| honesty, we aren't the purely rational creatures we think we are.
| Honestly steelmanning an argument changes you. And maybe that's
| for the better in some situations, but I certainly wouldn't take
| that for granted.
| JetAlone wrote:
| Being able to steelman someone else's argument without adopting
| their presuppositions, while understanding and possible
| experiencing the emotional/intuitive phenomena that got them to
| embrace them is a true test of your faith in your own
| worldview. If you "fail" that test, you will be absorbed into
| the outgroup and lose sight of your old emotional/intuitive
| presuppositions and worldview. You will lose a lot of friends
| and sunk costs, and be subjected to new rules. The risk is to
| literally lose your old self. That's horrifying, that idea can
| feel something like being abducted by the borg from star trek
| and converted into one of them.
| XorNot wrote:
| No, it isn't. Immersing yourself in someone else's propaganda
| just propagandizes you. The easiest victims are the ones who
| think they're genuinely too smart for it to have an effect on
| them. There's a reason country's pump this stuff out despite
| it seeming, on a cursory glance, _so ridiculous_ and overt.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| Hence, keeping your identity small:
| http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
| nusaru wrote:
| Wouldn't the obvious solution be to steelman whatever you were
| steelmanning against in the first place?
| gwd wrote:
| > There's a danger, while steelmanning, that you might come up
| with an argument that sounds good to you, but it's actually
| weaker to the opposition. Therefore, while trying to steelman
| their argument, you actually fill it with holes.
|
| That's why normal practice is to check: "So I hear you saying
| something like this: <steelman argument>. Is that right?"
|
| > To truly do it, you have to embed yourself not just in their
| rational thought but also in their worldview.
|
| Indeed; the best word I have for being truly persuasive is
| "incarnational": You have to enter into the situation of the
| person you want to convince, and see the way out of the cave
| they're in _from where they are now_.
|
| > And I really mean the part about it being dangerous. In all
| honesty, we aren't the purely rational creatures we think we
| are. Honestly steelmanning an argument changes you. And maybe
| that's for the better in some situations, but I certainly
| wouldn't take that for granted.
|
| I dunno; I have more faith in the power of truth. You certainly
| need to be careful that you're not taking information only from
| one source; if you _only_ listened to Goebel 's propaganda for
| 2 years you'd certainly start to have Nazi patterns of thought
| infect your thinking. But if you want to rescue someone who
| _has_ only heard Goebel 's propaganda for the last several
| years, you have to learn how to recognize the flaws in thinking
| from within it.
| antognini wrote:
| I think this gets at the related, but distinct, idea of the
| intellectual Turing test. The idea there is to present your
| opponent's argument in such a way that they can't tell if the
| argument came from you or someone on their side. If you can do
| that you have some assurance that you actually understand the
| argument they are making.
|
| You're right that steelmanning is a bit different in that
| you're trying to formulate the argument in a way that is most
| convincing to you. That may not necessarily be the argument
| that is most convincing to your opponent.
| ranger207 wrote:
| As always, there's a relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/106/
|
| I really like this technique because it forces you to think about
| what assumptions the other side had to have made in order to
| reach their conclusion. I've often found that the other side's
| argument _is_ the logical choice based on their assumptions and
| background knowledge. From there I can examine those assumptions,
| and my own assumptions, and see which parts are incorrect, or id
| additional information would cause the argument to be less
| conclusive. I'll then focus my argument on those incorrect
| assumptions, because attacking the argument head-on often has
| counterproductive results. And of course, it's not uncommon to
| find that my own assumptions were incorrect while researching the
| other side's arguments and data
| jcrittenden wrote:
| This technique was demonstrated brilliantly in a debate between
| Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEf6X-FueMo&t=3m12s
| swatcoder wrote:
| This is a very good technique for rational inspection of an
| opposing argument, and a powerful tactic in debate clubs and mock
| trials.
|
| But it's still a heady, rationalist approach to communication and
| will often stir up feelings of distrust, frustration, or
| resignation in the normal, everyday people that are pretty sure
| they're right and see you doing intellectual performance art with
| their words.
|
| Of course, that's also what makes it a very effective way to get
| under the skin of online trolls.
| gwd wrote:
| > But it's still a heady, rationalist approach to communication
| and will often stir up feelings of distrust, frustration, or
| resignation in the normal, everyday people that are pretty sure
| they're right and see you doing intellectual performance art
| with their words.
|
| Maybe I'm in a weird corner of the world, but I find use for
| this technique constantly in my professional life. You're
| frequently in situations where as a group you need to make
| decisions, and sometimes emotions run high; trying to
| articulate everyone's position as clearly as possible helps
| cool people down and opens them up to listening to other ideas,
| as well as making sure that all the relevant aspects have been
| covered.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I had some opinions changed today following a lengthy discussion
| with someone about a controversial subject.
|
| It's amazing what can happen when you don't assume someone who
| believes different things to you is an evil piece of shit.
|
| Maybe there's hope for the world after all!
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| Indeed. What was the topic?
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I don't want to say - it would distract from the more
| important point about how we communicate.
|
| Just imagine the list of things you've seen flame wars about
| recently. It's one of those.
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Kind of, yeah.
|
| 1. I've been on HN long enough - as a member and lurker -
| to have a pretty good idea on how the discussion would
| go.
|
| 2. I think the best discussions are had between people
| who can assume good faith. I don't think a public
| "debate" with randoms on the internet is the place for
| that.
|
| If you really want to know, you can email me. But I don't
| think it's that important.
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| How would the discussion go?
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Comments would be made for the benefit of the peanut
| gallery. People want to hear incisive comments, zingers,
| cleverness, impassioned rants, etc etc. This is what
| imaginary internet points rewards.
|
| With a one on one conversation, you're being judged by
| one person and one person only. You can express
| ignorance, honest but controversial beliefs you may not
| wish to commit to the internet for all eternity, and so
| on.
|
| Public forums with imaginary internet points are a
| skinner box. HN may be better than a lot of others but
| it's still the same beast.
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| That paints a really vivid picture. I can anticipate it
| playing out just like that.
|
| The medium is the message so to speak.
| wussboy wrote:
| Hmm. eMacs v. vim?
| [deleted]
| peatmoss wrote:
| I'd love to see a US presidential debate where each side
| represented their opponent's position, and the US electorate were
| somehow willing to make a quality understanding of the other
| sides' positions a key judgement criteria. A man can dream.
| hirundo wrote:
| I'd really like to watch steelman debates. For instance a Marxist
| and a Hayekian debate from each other's point of view. Judges
| vote according to the quality of the steelmanning rather than the
| conclusion. So a partisan that makes a weak argument to protect
| his own inverse position loses even if his own position is
| obviously right.
|
| Before the debate I would judge the quality of the position by
| the willingness of its proponents to honestly steelman its
| opponents, tending to give them a better grasp of the big
| picture.
| scifibestfi wrote:
| That sounds great. Any Youtube recommendations?
| Mezzie wrote:
| Even just a segment where participants say 'what I think my
| opponent's main argument is and what are the argument's
| greatest strengths' would be fascinating. It would show how
| well the participants understand each other and that they
| actually engaged with the substance of each other's arguments
| rather than just angling for sound bites/pithy quotes.
|
| A full steelman debate format would be very interesting.
| scifibestfi wrote:
| We're at peak strawmanning. Now can we swing the pendulum to
| steelmanning?
| tpoacher wrote:
| For me, the problem with "Steelmanning" is that it is extremely
| useful in exactly the same set of circumstances were it is also
| completely unnecessary; arguments in non-debate settings where
| the goal is optimal decision making, and where neither side has
| any motivation to use deceptive tactics to promote their
| argument.
|
| In the presence of a motive for underhanded argumentation,
| strengthening your opponent's argument while allowing intentional
| weakening of yours is not a good recipe for useful outcomes.
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| Yea, also I've come to understand that in a loaded, bad faith
| or ideological discussion there is no useful outcome and it
| makes sense to BATNA the shit out of it, usually in the form of
| not engaging or just walking away.
| feet wrote:
| That sounds to me like its useless in essentially all of
| politics
| jfengel wrote:
| In politics the BATNA is to find allies to outvote your
| opponent. That's what voting is for: when you absolutely,
| positively cannot come to an agreement, you choose the
| opinion of the majority.
|
| This an absolutely terrible option. It's rife with abuse,
| and even when fair, is only right slightly more than it's
| wrong. It doesn't resolve any of the underlying issues,
| which continue to exist. It seems to be better than any of
| the other last-ditch options, but it's incredibly bad.
|
| Even among your allies, you're still stuck with the same
| problem. Being allies you're hoping that their core
| agreements with you will enable tactics like steelmanning
| to work, though in a lot of cases it still doesn't.
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| In politics the BATNA will be different as there are real
| costs (like some bad, faith, actor is going to tell you
| what you can or cannot do with your own body).
| feet wrote:
| They do so in the name of things without evidence, such
| as the innocent immaterial souls of the unborn
|
| How can we approach this problem?
| jamesrom wrote:
| It's true, emotions and argumentivity require a different tact
| than just "steelmanning". I can think of plenty of reasons
| where steelmanning is not the best rhetoric in those kinds of
| situations.
|
| On the flip side, steelmanning is a really good "high ground
| maneuver". A good faith effort at trying to understand and
| strengthen the argument of someone who is being argumentative
| is a way to take the emotion out of the argument. You might
| find you have endeared yourself to them, and doing so have
| created a chance to shift their thinking a degree.
| dmalik wrote:
| We use this technique all the time where I work for UX design.
| Often when stakeholders ask for things to be a certain way we try
| our best to do it the way that it was asked for before exploring
| other options.
|
| Often we know it won't work because of intuition/experience but
| providing a best effort steelman option when presenting design
| options is very helpful in speeding through stakeholder reviews.
| Stakeholders will eat you alive in a review if you present a
| strawman of what they asked for.
| ip26 wrote:
| Any time I see it in practice, it always comes across as
| incredibly condescending and frequently flat-out wrong, because
| the person attempting to steelman has usually not done the work
| to understand everything that goes into the other position.
|
| I prefer charitable interpretation
| (https://effectiviology.com/principle-of-charity/) which is a
| good platform for learning about the other's position, and
| potentially helping them strengthen their position for
| themselves.
| DantesKite wrote:
| If you'll steelman often enough, you'll be surprised how often
| you change your mind as you realize your initial assessment
| wasn't quite up to par.
| dgb23 wrote:
| That's the best outcome isn't it?
| hunglee2 wrote:
| Lex Friedman commonly asks this question for his guests on the
| podcast. The challenge of having to honestly explain - and then
| forcefully argue - your opponents case, enriches the conversation
| in a profound way. Tellingly, the guests who are unable to do
| this well, are invariably diminished. Excellent mental
| discipline, I suspect many of us here on HN could do with some
| practice on it
| Sheeny96 wrote:
| Recently listened to the Douglas Murray episode. As someone who
| has followed Douglas for a while, it was disappointing to see
| him completely skirt the request to steelman his opponents
| arguments in any meaningful sense.
| hunglee2 wrote:
| changes your view doesn't it? I think it is a very good test
| EUV071STR48 wrote:
| > Excellent mental discipline, I suspect many of us here on HN
| could do with some practice on it
|
| come on...
| Datagenerator wrote:
| What do you think is wrong with my view on this?
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Another formulation of this excellent technique is courtesy of
| Bob Taylor [1]:
|
| _A Class Two disagreement is when each can explain to the
| other's satisfaction the other's point of view._
|
| I've actually tried this, and it was pure torture for the
| subjects. They would start out, reluctantly, "He says X, Y, and Z
| ... [long pause] _but he 's wrong!_ "
|
| You could see them _try_ to state the other 's POV, but they just
| couldn't do it.
|
| I think reading a more in-depth explanation like these might help
| a lot
|
| [1] https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-
| taylo...
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| Bryan Caplan came up with a similar idea, the ideological
| turing test: Can you make the case for something so that it's
| impossible to say whether you really believe it or not?
| gwd wrote:
| > They would start out, reluctantly, "He says X, Y, and Z ...
| [long pause] but he's wrong! "
|
| I mean, a lot of people have trouble clearly articulating an
| argument for _their own_ position, much less somebody else 's.
| It's a skill like riding a bike or throwing a ball -- something
| that seems natural once you've had some practice, but not
| something we're born with. (NB I'm not talking about being
| _correct_ ; you can be right and know you're right without
| being able to articulate it well.)
|
| If anyone wants some practice, I found the book "The Logic of
| Real Arguments" by Alec Fisher [1] really fun and useful.
|
| [1]
| https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Logic_of_Real_Arg...
| AlbertCory wrote:
| Yeah, good point. "Arguing the other side's position" takes
| training.
| ineptech wrote:
| The problem is that steelmanning is only useful in one kind of
| argument (the kind in which each party would rather discover the
| correct answer than "win"), which is increasingly rare compared
| to the other kind (in which each party already _knows_ their
| opponent to be evil, deluded, or both). Debates that include an
| audience are almost without exception the latter sort, in which
| steelmanning is worse than useless.
| oconnor663 wrote:
| > Debates that include an audience are almost without exception
| the latter sort
|
| I think a big exception is debate societies that meet
| regularly, where the folks doing the debating actually know
| each other and care about their long-term relationships with
| each other. But yeah, this isn't exactly a widespread hobby.
| gpm wrote:
| Even in debates seeking truth, I think it's only an effective
| technique in a small subset. It doesn't work if the
| disagreement is because you're both just aware of a different
| set of facts. It doesn't work if the disagreement is because
| you have different fundamental goals. It doesn't work if the
| "debate" is actually a misunderstanding where you and someone
| else understand a term to mean different things. Amongst truth
| seeking debates, I feel like most casual ones end up falling
| into one of the above categories (more "academic" debates, the
| kind you find in philosophy classes, might be less likely too,
| because topics you can usefully debate are the ones actively
| discussed in those contexts).
|
| Also I'm not sure I agree that debates seeking truth are rare,
| they are just publicly broadcast less frequently so you come
| across more of them. Certainly I debate close friends and
| family matters on a fairly regular basis (for fun and
| learning).
| bick_nyers wrote:
| In arguments in which the opponent is more concerned with
| winning as opposed to discovering the correct answer, I don't
| believe any strategy is particularly effective.
|
| That being said, what steelmanning can offer, is to change the
| nature of the argument. If done correctly, you can sometimes
| de-escalate your opponent enough in order to tap into their
| humanity, and make the argument not about winning. Steelmanning
| is just a logical way of empathizing with your opponent.
| lolinder wrote:
| In my life the "tenth man" approach the article mentions and
| links to is more often what's called for.
|
| The theory is essentially to refuse to participate in an echo
| chamber. If everyone in a group is feeding off each other in
| bashing an unpopular viewpoint, then you represent that
| viewpoint as strongly as possible rather than joining in.
|
| I've used this technique with a lot of success, even in some
| pretty aggressive and opinionated groups. At a minimum it
| diffuses the echo chamber and the conversation turns to other
| topics, but I've also had good conversations come from it,
| where people leave understanding the other side better than
| they did before.
|
| Because you're representing a party that is _not_ present, you
| 're less likely to end up making them feel patronized than with
| steelmanning, but it has a similar effect on your own
| understanding. It's even better if you're able to help someone
| else see the other perspective, too!
| adastra22 wrote:
| With very few exceptions, nobody is evil in their own head-
| canon. If you think the other party is evil, deluded, or both,
| then in my experience that is a definite indication that you do
| not understand the opposing viewpoint very well, and could
| benefit from steel-manning.
| verdagon wrote:
| Steelmanning is actually pretty effective against hostile
| opponents.
|
| Once you both agree to what your opponent is claiming, you can
| identify and ask about all the assumptions that lead up to that
| claim, and from there, you can discuss and dismantle any false
| assumptions.
|
| It's a way to "shortcut past the nonsense" and get straight to
| the root differences.
| swatcoder wrote:
| Most non-academic arguments resolve to value differences, not
| false assumptions. And people often feel very vulnerable when
| they feel like somebody's making an effort to expose and
| challenge their values.
|
| Much of the time, the nonsense is there to keep things civil:
| you rehash tired tropes to talk around the issue for a while,
| get tired, and then somebody buys the next round of beers.
| verdagon wrote:
| Well put, I've also had it boil down to value differences
| pretty often. The nice thing about steelmanning is that you
| can identify those value differences more quickly.
|
| One time I was in an argument that was looking to get
| pretty heated, but with steelmanning I was able to find the
| underlying value difference, point out that we disagreed on
| it, and then we just kind of sat there in awkward silence
| for a second and moved on to play Starcraft.
|
| It was a good day.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Steelmanning is useless against hostile opponents because
| they won't engage in rationale discussion.
| kbelder wrote:
| It's not useless, because steelmanning isn't a process to
| win an argument. It's to improve yourself. A hostile,
| irrational person can still (occasionally) be _right_ , and
| if they are, you'd be better off knowing that.
| rexpop wrote:
| By "hostile," do you mean "bad faith"?
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| Although sometimes bad faith does come into play, I find
| that the phrase is often used as an accusation to dismiss
| the other person even when the other person is not actually
| arguing in bad faith. It's increasingly one of those
| rhetorical tactics people learn online and apply willy-
| nilly.
| tinco wrote:
| No, it doesn't have to be bad faith. It's common (nowadays)
| to have such opposite beliefs that one or both opponents
| believe the other person is acting in bad faith or has
| amoral motivations. I recently had such a debate on HN and
| as we were talking people would pitch in saying the guy was
| a liar or trolling. He just truly didn't believe climate
| science for whatever reason. I also think he was a bit of
| an asshole personality wise, but I've never met him in real
| life so who knows.
| [deleted]
| gwd wrote:
| The major advantage of steelmanning I haven't seen mentioned
| so far: The _psychological_ benefits of it.
|
| The fact is most of us are eager to feel heard; and when we
| don't feel heard, we have an instinctive desire to shout our
| own viewpoint louder, making it more difficult to hear other
| people's viewpoints. The result is that situations where
| people feel strongly you get everyone shouting and nobody
| listening.
|
| Stating the other person's point as clearly and strongly as
| you can not only helps you potentially be less wrong; it
| helps them feel heard, which makes them in turn more open to
| hearing other points of view.
| ineptech wrote:
| That only works if your opponent is playing along. I don't
| mean they have to be nice or civil, but they do have to be
| consistent. There's no point trying to e.g. establish shared
| definitions for a key term if your opponent is not bound by
| it. At best, steelmanning might help you realize you're
| talking to someone who is not acting in good faith slightly
| faster.
| verdagon wrote:
| If you ask your opponent, "Just so I understand, are you
| saying ___?", they'll usually help you understand what
| they're claiming. People generally like to be heard and
| understood, even if they violently disagree with you.
|
| There's the occasional troll who is intentionally wasting
| your time, but I find that to be pretty rare, especially on
| HN. People are most often just bad at communication, not
| malicious.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| Steelmanning is most useful in one kind of argument, the
| argument that goes on when you, I mean you, encounter an
| argument that you consider wrong and dangerous, and threatening
| to your core values.
|
| There are a couple reactions you can have to that.
| [deleted]
| ianai wrote:
| In those situations the adage that arguing against bad faith
| arguments is self defeating. To outside observers it just makes
| the bad faith arguments look credible.
| thrown_22 wrote:
| It's even worse online where just silencing your opponent is
| considered a victory.
|
| HN was particularly bad about this with post flagging a few
| months ago. It was weaponized to hide posts which _someone_
| disagreed with, even if the post was later restored the hour to
| twelve it was offline was enough to astroturf debates.
|
| I'm seeing less of this since GP started getting his own posts
| flagged. Shame Dang didn't do his job till his boss told him
| to.
| colmmacc wrote:
| That might be true of politics and cable news, but I think
| active listening and being able to succinctly restate someone
| else's line of reasoning, position, feelings, or argument is
| incredibly useful in normal life. I find myself doing it
| several times a day, mostly in business meetings, but in
| personal things too. I don't think of it as a debate technique,
| but just a way to show to a person that you really are
| listening to them. That can be very effective. It's a great
| rule of behavior even for small disagreements or suggestions.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| It's also not especially useful in the type of argument in
| which your opponent is simply factually incorrect and not
| interested in changing that; you can't steelman something where
| step 1 of any possible line of argument is false.
|
| But I've found it a very effective approach when having a
| conversation about the best solution to a problem, for
| instance.
|
| I also like the double crux technique: collaborate to find the
| crux for each party, the most important point upon which the
| argument rests, such that if it turned out to not hold you
| would change your mind. Turns an argument into a collaborative
| exploration.
| wussboy wrote:
| It may be useful in that if even step one is a no go, at
| least you'll find out early that discussion is useless and
| you can spend your time in others ways
|
| I used to argue religion on Facebook a lot (I know, I know).
| But I stopped accepting invitations to debate when I started
| asked my opponents to agree before hand that they would agree
| to change their minds if I was right (as I agreed to change
| if I was wrong). When I realized they weren't interested in
| learning anything, the point of debate went away.
| akavel wrote:
| Who was to be the arbiter in the debate, i.e. the person
| deciding which one of you were right?
| dataflow wrote:
| > I also like the double crux technique: collaborate to find
| the crux for each party, the most important point upon which
| the argument rests, such that if it turned out to not hold
| you would change your mind. Turns an argument into a
| collaborative exploration.
|
| In theory it's nice. In practice this doesn't get you
| anywhere nearly as often as you'd hope. Because IRL
| disagreements are almost often over the _magnitude_ of a
| problem, not over their existence.
|
| Trivial example for the sake of illustration:
|
| Teammate 1: {writes some code}
|
| Teammate 2: "That's hard to read, can you do it {this} way?
| It's much easier to understand the code that way if we find a
| bug."
|
| Teammate 1: "That's too brittle though, can we do it {that}
| way? That way it's much less likely for the code to break in
| the first place."
|
| Both sides can understand each others' positions perfectly
| fine. They just think their own concerns/priorities are a
| bigger deal than those of the other person.
|
| Same goes with many political and other issues; this was just
| a silly example to illustrate.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| The way I try to cut through that kind of disagreement is
| to clearly identify the _source_ of my opinion, and the
| situation in which it would apply. Ie. "Instinctively, I'd
| presume that in a few months when the customer inevitably
| notices that the thing they asked for was not what they
| should have wanted, having done it that way is going to
| come back to bite us." "Too brittle" or "too hard to read"
| are borderline unempirical; it can be beneficial to
| construct the actual situation that makes it relevant, so
| the argument can be brought back to empirical disagreements
| about reality.
|
| And of course ultimately, if something is a subjective
| statement it's easy to reach agreements on the facts - Ie.
| "I feel like X", "well I feel like Y", where both are true
| statements - at which point you can stop pointlessly
| arguing and fall back on negotiation. "Well, I'll accept
| your PR if you at least Z."
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| "Let's make a framework!" YAGNI. Best code is no code.
| Fix the people and process problems as much as possible
| before opening up the IDE or even writing the JIRA.
| keithalewis wrote:
| In one group I worked in the first rule in the coding
| guidelines was "Don't sweat the small stuff." I was
| surprised by how many back and forths were quashed by
| someone just asking, "Is this small stuff?"
| dataflow wrote:
| > at which point you can stop pointlessly arguing and
| fall back on negotiation. "Well, I'll accept your PR if
| you at least Z." Or, for example, your coworker (and/or
| yourself for that matter) might feel "negotiation" is the
| wrong kind of approach toward engineering problems in the
| first place.
|
| Again, nice in theory, and sometimes that might work, but
| it has lots of failure modes. For example, you can end up
| with nonsensical Z's that neither of you would otherwise
| find particularly worthwhile or compelling, even though
| you both agree that, yes, Z _would_ improve things
| _slightly_.
|
| Exaggerated example: imagine the original debate had been
| over _" we should leave the bike by the road so it's
| convenient to grab it and go"_ vs. _" we should lock the
| bike by the house so it's harder to steal it"_, which is
| a debate over a 2-minute task. Your compromise Z might
| end up being an additional 1-week task like _" well I'll
| let you leave it near the road if you/we first build a
| brown bikeshed for it so it at least looks nicer"_. You
| might both agree that it would indeed looks nicer that
| way, so there needn't be any disagreement on Z itself,
| but neither of you would've felt it appropriate to spend
| any time or resources on Z in the absence of the
| negotiation.
|
| Usually it's not _that_ stark of a contrast, but I 've
| seen milder versions of this play out frequently in
| practice. Even when both people play along a few times
| (which often doesn't happen), they end up getting tired
| of having to go through it every time there's a
| disagreement.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| > Again, nice in theory, and sometimes that might work,
| but it has lots of failure modes. For example, you can
| end up with nonsensical Z's that neither of you would
| otherwise find particularly worthwhile or compelling,
| even though you both agree that, yes, Z would improve
| things slightly.
|
| I think that's where negotiation is a stronger frame
| though, because that sort of debate generally comes down
| to "how do I get through this faster", and the
| negotiative framing is "I disagree, but it doesn't
| matter, because the thing I actually want is for us to
| stop having this conversation, how can I achieve this
| with the greatest efficiency", or phrased otherwise,
| "what do I need to give you to make you go away?" Which
| there is much less to talk about.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Also there are arguments that are fundamentally not based on
| facts, but on values. Steelmanning backfires in this case.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| Double crux can work in that case, if someone is operating
| in good faith. Not all values are sacred values that
| someone won't brook discussion of. I've had values-
| difference discussions on programming language design that
| went productively.
| Symmetry wrote:
| One way that I've seen attempted steelmaning go wrong is that the
| the inferential distance between the disputants is much larger
| than they think it is[1], leading to a false steelman that is
| actually a far less persuasive argument than the original would
| have been if the steelmanner had the background to understand the
| argument. As part of a dialogue this can be very useful as it can
| get the participants to realize they differ in foundational
| assumptions rather than just whatever they're talking about. But
| outside dialogue it can make the practice dangerous if you're not
| careful.
|
| [1]
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5LASfhhArZ7w/expecting-...
| mannykannot wrote:
| Several people here are conflating steelmanning with
| strawmanning, but the latter is, at best, an attempt to make a
| bad argument out of how the other person chose to express their
| position, and it is downhill from there, with tricks like willful
| misunderstanding, the introduction of non-sequiturs, and claims
| of tacit premises that were never intended.
|
| Steelmanning can also be used as preemptive self-defense for your
| position, assuming that it is actually defensible (if it is not,
| the sooner you come to that conclusion, the better for all
| concerned, especially yourself.)
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Steelmanning is a really interesting concept that has popped up
| in the last few years. It used to just be that "arguing in good
| faith" was what "steelmanning" is today, and strawmanning your
| opponent was rude. It says a lot about how we think that it is
| now considered special to try to figure out what your opponent in
| a debate actually believes so you can attack it on its merits.
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _It used to just be that "arguing in good faith" was what
| "steelmanning" is today_
|
| Isn't steelmanning the practice of actively making your
| opponent's argument for them? This exercise goes beyond arguing
| in good faith, where you are arguing your own side, but in a
| way that doesn't strawman the other side.
| skykooler wrote:
| Reminds me of a story about the Wright brothers, who when
| arguing would agree to switch sides and argue each others
| point to try and overcome their bias.
| swatcoder wrote:
| I think of "arguing in good faith" as working to clearly
| communicate a position, as against working to distress,
| embarrass, confuse, gaslight or otherwise personally
| undermine your opponent/audience.
|
| You can absolutely do it for a position you don't hold, and
| it has nothing particular to do with
| steelmanning/strawmanning (and indeed, you can use both
| techniques bad faith).
| gnicholas wrote:
| Agree completely. BTW, I've seen your posts here and
| wondered if you happen to have gone to Swarthmore College,
| which students/alums refer to as 'Swat'.
| swatcoder wrote:
| Hah! Interesting. But nope, I did not!
| [deleted]
| throw7 wrote:
| Steelmanning should be used by yourself from the start:
|
| 1. What is your central point?
|
| 2. What are your arguments? Rank them from best to worst.
|
| 3. What are your main claims? What explanations, supporting
| evidence and examples do you cite?
|
| 4. What are your emotional drivers, attitudes and beliefs, and
| motivations behind your viewpoint/worldview?
|
| 5. What are the vulnerabilities and weaknesses in any of the
| above? How can you fix them?
| thekingofrome wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-01 23:02 UTC)