I learned a new word recently, when Richard Barron sent me a message suggesting I “write something about steelmanning as a means of having better conversations with people with other points of view.” It was the first I’d heard of the term “steelman”. I thought it sounded similar to (and opposite of) “strawman”. And that turned out to be true.

(Related: Strawman: A Logical Fallacy Explained.)

A strawman (common logical fallacy) is the act of misrepresenting an opponent’s argument or position in order to more easily counter or refute it. A steelman, then, is truly the opposite of that. It is accurately expressing an opponent’s position, so much so that the opponent will agree exactly with how you’ve expressed it. Only then should you refute the position.

I learned that steelmanning was once known as Rapoport’s Rules (after Anatol Rapoport), and also is sometimes known as “Dennett’s Rules” (because philosopher Daniel Dennett restated Rapoport’s idea). Here is how Dennett said it:

“How to compose a successful critical commentary:

1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, ‘Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.’
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.”

Daniel Dennett, Intuition Pumps And Other Tools For Thinking (source)

I don’t know the context for either Rapoport or Dennett discussing these “rules” — because I haven’t read any books or articles by either man — but it sounds a lot like they’re talking about very formal debate settings or some other kind of strictly structured conversation. Otherwise, the full list of rules is — to my mind, at least — overburdensome.

‘Better Conversations’

As to Richard’s suggestion that using a steelman form of expression “as a means of having better conversations with people with other points of view”, I’m certain that internalizing the basic principle would help in many situations. But by “basic principle”, I mean: don’t worry about all four steps that Dennett or Rapoport proposed; just be careful to not construct strawmen.

For example, say a politically conservative acquaintance says “taxes should be lower; the government wastes too much of our money”. If I want to rebut or criticize his position, it helps nothing for me to mischaracterize his position as “Fred hates roads and post offices.” Roads and post offices are indeed things funded by taxpayer dollars, but Fred probably doesn’t hate them. Fred probably has something else in mind. If I want a productive conversation, I need to talk about the same thing Fred is talking about.

It also seems important that I’m not simply parroting what the other person says. Because we could be using different definitions of particular words, or understanding connotations differently (especially on emotional topics like abortion or racial disparities). Therefore it makes sense to make the effort to restate the viewpoint. This ensures both parties (you and the other person), as well as any audience to the discussion, that you actually do “get” what they’re saying.

This is mostly about arguing in good faith. The hypothetical Fred and I probably agree on quite a bit; we probably even agree that there is waste involved in government spending. What we probably disagree on is how, specifically, to combat the waste. But if I begin by mischaracterizing his position, we’ll never get to the part we disagree about (the proposed solutions) and neither of us will ever have a real chance to persuade the other. You’re going to get a lot further in casual arguments or discussions if you actually make the effort to accurately and correctly state your opponent’s position. Certainly if you’re actually trying to convince the person you’re arguing with, they’re going to see it as important that you actually understand their view.

‘So Clearly, Vividly’

I’m not convinced of anything beyond that general principle though. When Dennett insists we must re-word our opponent’s viewpoint “so clearly, vividly, and fairly” that they thank us for it, I think this is a little much. Feel free to try it though — and tell me what happens.

It’s not — and shouldn’t be — my job to describe their position accurately. Certainly not in casual conversation or something so mundane as a blog entry. If they have failed to state their own position clearly, that is their own fault; not mine. Or if they have stated their own position clearly, then I can simply use their own words.

The important part here is to not twist their words or meaning into something they didn’t intend.

A Personal History

Though I didn’t have a term for this until Richard’s message, I have been doing this for some time — internally. Because most of the positions and viewpoints I have argued against have been my own. I don’t know of very many people who do this, at least not very often. For example, if I argue against Young Earth Creationism, it is the position that I once held, and in fact it was the position I still held as I first began to attack it. If I argue against the existence of a God — specifically the Christian God — the same pattern holds true. I know the other side’s position, and I probably know it better than most of the people still on that side — because I studied it extensively while I still believed it.

So at least in those cases, it is very easy for me to avoid a strawman — even if don’t fully construct the Dennett/Rapoport “steelman”. I can at least accurately state the opposite viewpoint.

When it comes to opinions or viewpoints that I never fully espoused or never agreed with at all, I suppose it is more difficult to fully state the opponent’s view. For example, I have never agreed with the position that sick or dying people should be prevented from medically ending their own lives with the help of a physician. I confess I don’t understand how or why someone would take up that position. So I don’t know if I could state the opposition’s viewpoint clearly, vividly, OR fairly on that topic. I’m sure I would try, given the opportunity.

Of Course, It Won’t Always Work

I can think of times when this isn’t going to make any difference, and in fact would be pointless. Sometimes people say things so outlandish or untrue that I don’t know if there’s any point in trying to converse with them. Like when one of my uncles claimed, late in 2016, that Obama was going to declare martial law to prohibit the free elections. When I reminded him of this after the elections, he refused to back down on his claim.

Often the person arguing with you has bad information, perhaps because their president lied to them 9,000 times in the space of 24 months. Arguing against their position is pointless no matter how you do it, because they’ve based their position on falsehoods.

Kinder, Gentler Arguments

Also, as with any argument or debate, what might be more important than learning how to “steelman” is learning to decide whether a particular debate is important enough to you. This is something I am personally working on in my own mind. Very often I’m certain I can win a particular argument, if only the other person will stay engaged long enough. But the topic itself might not be worth the energy to me. The possibility of losing yet another friend might overshadow the short-lived joy of triumph. Maybe it’s better to skip certain arguments, even when you’re right. (Lesson learned from marriage.)

In other cases, I think a better strategy might be asking them to clarify or specify their own viewpoint. I’m sure I could get better at this, and I wish more people would try it with me. The few times I’ve remembered to do this, the other person will often quickly begin adding caveats and qualifications, sometimes back down immediately. If I don’t actually understand their viewpoint — if I can’t restate it as if I believe it — then I need more information. (This isn’t the same thing as just asking questions or sealioning, though if you’re not careful to phrase the questions well you might be accused of one or both; it’s happened to me several times.)

But Yes

But yes, if you’re actually going to make the effort to argue against someone’s viewpoint, keep the steelman in mind.