EN BG

Steelmanning

If you cannot state your opponent's position better than they can, you do not actually understand the disagreement.

Steelmanning is the practice of constructing the strongest possible version of an argument you disagree with — and then responding to that, not to a weaker version you made up. It is the opposite of strawmanning, where you quietly replace someone's actual point with a dumber version that is easier to knock down.

Most arguments never get anywhere because both sides are fighting caricatures. You hear someone's position, translate it into the worst possible interpretation, demolish that interpretation, and walk away feeling victorious. Meanwhile, the actual point they were making sits untouched. You have not engaged with it. You have performed a debate for your own ego.

Steelmanning forces you to do something uncomfortable: genuinely understand why a reasonable person might hold a view you find wrong. This does not mean agreeing with them. It means taking their reasoning seriously enough to find its real strengths before you look for weaknesses. Sometimes, when you do this honestly, you discover the opposing view is stronger than you thought. Sometimes you find a flaw you would have missed by attacking the straw version. Either way, you come out understanding more than you did going in — which is the entire point of thinking about anything.

References