For those that don’t know, steelmanning is the opposite of strawmanning.
It means re-stating your opponent’s view in a manner that they agree “yes, that is my view” and only then you express why you disagree with it.
Failure to do so means one of two things: either you don’t actually understand the stance you claim to oppose or you’re not even in the business of finding truth and changing minds to begin with.
Not sure if this is actually unpopular, but it didn’t feel like a showerthought either.
I agree with the title, but what you described seems more just like establishing agreed upon definitions.
Steelmanning is when you try to find the strongest possible framing/argument for a position you disagree with, and then arguing against that. That’s why it’s the opposite of strawmanning (i.e. arguing against a weak/inaccurate version of the opponent’s view). One is an argument against a particularly generous framing, the other an argument against a particularly harsh framing.
Just restating a view in a way your opponent agrees with isn’t quite that. That’s not generous or harsh, it’s just neutral.
You appear to be the only person in this entire thread who understands what ‘steel manning’ is. Mildly amusing.
I don’t see much conflict between that and what I said. The point is to make sure we’re talking about the same thing rather than talking past each other. If the person you’re arguing against can sign off on your “stronger version” of their argument, then that’s fine. There you just again run the risk of twisting their words to the point that you’re again no longer arguing against what they actually said even if your intentions were good.
It’s not a matter of conflict, it’s just not what the word means. The point of steelmanning is not to make sure you’re talking about the same thing, it’s to argue against the strongest version of the argument. Technically they don’t even have to sign off on it, it’s possible that they might not actually support the steelman version of their argument.
Yes, making sure you’re talking about the same thing and not talking past each other is important in a debate, but that’s not what steelmanning is.
Not unpopular at all.
In theory it’s popular, but in practice it’s not. In theory: theory and practice are the same, but in practice: they’re not.
The YouTube channel Clint’s Reptiles does a lot of steelmanning of Creationist arguments from an evolutionary perspective. He has a PhD in Biology and just happens to be a former atheist and current religious person. People accuse him of being a shill for both sides whivh is how you know you’re doing it right.
I understand the appeal of steelmanning, however linguistically the term itself promotes the illusion that other genders are less equipped to engage in debate. It inherits this bias from the figure of the strawman being the only gender considered capable of protecting crops via manning the station.
A bias I have is that conservatism seeks to generate value through competition, whereas progressivism seeks to generate value through cooperation (i.e. game theory). If that premise is accepted then progressivism implies not limiting the scope of the language one uses, in order to gain maximum insights.
I suggest the ungendered neologism Best-case Framing as a substitute. It’s potentially less binary or oppositional too as it can refer to all positions not just the us vs them I believe is suggested by steelmanning.
Additionally, Peyton Manning should change his name.
i’ve always looked up to the straw man as a woman
this actually sounds close to a dialectic.
I get the problem of people on Lemmy asking for an explanation on why something exists or why people see something a certain way and take being able to explain it as agreeing to it.
Steelmanning is rarely ever used in an honest way. IMO, It’s almost always used as a way to dodge.
I worked with a person who would constantly do this:
A: “Do you think the policy will reduce costs?”
B: “So you’re asking whether the policy will reduce costs?”
A: “Yes”
B: “Do you think the policy will reduce costs?”
At one time I just hung up on them.
The exchange you described doesn’t sound anything like steelmanning to me. Seems more like your coworker didn’t want to engage for some reason.
They were my boss.
Oh, a troll type, then
I dunno. He kinda just started doing it one day. At first I thought he just didn’t no the answer to the question and didn’t want to sound stupid. But when I call him on it, And asked him to stop answering questions with questions, his response was literally a question. So I assume he just decided he wasn’t going to like me anymore.
But who cares now, I don’t work there!
Sounds more like your boss just didn’t understand the business. “By the book” managers often have no idea how the business actually works, so they hide behind vague answers and questions. They tend to be liked by upper management because they’ll just do what’s asked without questions. They tend to be hated by people below them because they can’t answer any questions and often know less than the people they supervise.
False dilemma…
