Steelmanning

Steelmanning and strawmanning are two terms that I've been looking at a lot lately.

A quick summary.

Strawmanning

Strawmanning means that you are oversimplifying someone else's argument into a weaker version to make it easier to knock down.

So, if I disagree with you, I'll re-summarize what your words, but in a way that uses the worst version of the argument.

For example, you might say, "I like to drink a smoothie in the morning instead of coffee."

A strawman argument or response to that might be something like, "Wait, so you hate coffee growers and think that the whole culture of coffee is terrible?"

That would be said in bad faith. It takes something that you said, runs it to the extreme, and assumes malice.

Once you study these forms of argument, you'll see it everywhere. In debates online, in political discussion, in arguments at work.

I've been guilty of doing this more than once. In fact, as a teenager, it was a preferred form of winning a disagreement.

Strawmanning is not good. The world would be better off if we stopped doing it, stopped trying to misrepresent someone's perspective to win up our side and make the opposition look bad.

It might work in the short term. You might win someone over, but that would be from fear or ignorance, not from a position of strength or understanding.

Steelmanning

So what is steelmanning?

It's the opposite. When you're in a discussion with someone, and in a position where you are trying to argue another view, steelmanning tries to represent the best version of the other person's position.

Now, one note on arguments. I don't think that they are generally useful. When you enter into a debate to try and win over someone, you usually strengthen and catalyze the person in opposition to you. Less and less do I look for ways to enter into disagreements and win people to my team. I'm not as interested in proving someone wrong, in getting points for my righteousness, and in making others look dumb.

It's just not the type of world I want to live in. I don't want to be involved in bad faith arguments, in standing against opponents, and in defining my life as opposite others.

But there are times when it's necessary. You may need to defend someone, stand up for injustice, protect the vulnerable.

That's where steelmanning comes in.

An example

I'll give you an example that I disagree with, but that proves the point.

Someone might make an argument that milk should be put in the bowl before the cereal.

My instinct is to push back against that, point out how it's wrong, and dive into an example of the best way to do it.

Steelmanning would first position the milk-in-bowl-first argument in the strongest light. You might say something like, "Putting the milk in first keeps the cereal from getting soggy and helps you get the right ratio of milk to cereal."

That's not to say I like it or would do it myself. But it takes a moment to consider why someone might choose this and argues for it.

It doesn't mean you have to agree with it. But it does mean you choose to acknowledge it in its strongest form.

The important part here is to make the best argument you can that the other person would agree with, or at least that a representative milk-in-bowl-first proponent would see as a reasonable perspective of how they choose to approach their breakfast habits.

This is important.

Steelmanning requires empathy, taking the time to understand the views of others, and putting yourself in their shoes.

In some cases, it's easy.

How I eat my breakfast is a tiny part of my life, and it's trivial to look at the perspective of another, even if I don't agree hold to it myself.

But in other cases, it's harder. And this is where it's so important to invest time in perspectives—to show to people in your life that you care.

I want to do more of that.

Take the effort to see the steelman version of views I disagree with, in order to empathize and see things from the other side, in order to humanize someone I disagree with, in order to have a better understanding of people in general.

Why it matters

I recently listened to a series of debates steelmanning on a topic that I have found incredibly controversial. And it was done in a way I'd never seen before. The person started off by sharing that they were going to argue against a view I held. But first they were going to steelman my side.

They did it very well.

They outlined the perspective I held perfectly. That told me that they'd taken the time to understand it, to see the nuance in the tiny details of it, and that they made a good faith attempt to come up with the strongest version of the view I held.

That didn't mean they agreed with it.

This is crucial.

They don't believe the view I hold is correct. But they wanted to make sure they'd taken the time to understand it, to dig into it, to represent it in its best light.

That was incredibly meaningful to me. So now, when I hear their perspectives in opposition to my own, I know at least that they understand my side of the debate.

That matters. It's such a missed point in society today. I don't need you to agree with me, but I want you to understand me. And if you understand, truly, with all the nuance that I hold, then it means there's a possibility for connection.

I don't think a steelman should be used to win arguments, force sides to change, or manipulate. Instead, it's useful when someone is truly looking for perspective, open to change, and willing to hear out another view. Then it becomes important. Then it's something that opens the door and says you understand and are willing to engage.

Where I won't use it

Now, there is a limit.

I don't think it's useful to steelman everything. There are some perspectives that I don't have the time to look into, don't have the energy to learn, or are from such a skewed (in my view) angle that I wouldn't want to give energy to them.

I'll take the silliest example I can imagine. I heard an idea online that all birds are actually robots. I don't want to steelman that. I don't see the benefit of doing it, and I might actually cause harm by engaging in it.

Changing how I think

My hope is that I can spend more time trying to understand, and less time trying to win arguments, more time sincerely hearing people out, and less time strengthening my side.

I've changed my mind so many times over the years, and each time I was sincere in my belief. I want, therefore, to give a chance to others, to reach out to those who are operating in good faith, and find more ways to connect.

It's hard, but it's the right way to connect, to care, and to be part of our society.