Hacker News Reader

Comment by TulliusCicero | Hacker News Reader

Getting a little meta there, man.

I'm demonstrating what would be lost if someone steelmanned me in an actual argument about transportation.

> You're looking at what a strong argument against your own position (multi-modal is better) would look like to better understand your own position! That's what steelmanning is!

No it isn't? Or at least, that's not how I've understood it. From how I've seen people discuss it, I thought it included avoiding attacking your opponent's weak points, not just engaging them on strong ones. I don't think we should preemptively avoid points within an issue just because our opponent is either weak or strong on them.

I have no problem looking at the good points of my opponents and even acknowledging they have some validity, but I'm not gonna avoid attacking their weak points too.

View on HN

To put steelmanning in software terms: if we’re arguing about what algorithm to use to solve a certain problem, I can assume you’ll work out all the bugs in your implementation (in your example: e.g. getting capacity/speed numbers slightly wrong for some modes of transportation), and focus on the core algorithm instead (e.g. that transitional period is something that definitely needs to be addressed)

That's not actually analogous, though, because often the weak points aren't "bugs to be worked out".

For example, take this Parks & Rec clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psi5m4x5aT0

While this lady was courageous enough to be willing to put her bigotry out in the open, for every person like this, there's 10 more locals with similar sentiments who are self-aware enough to not say the quiet part out loud. This is a weak point within NIMBY arguments -- that often they don't want "those people" around, whether that be a matter of race or class -- but it's not merely a bug you can iron out, because it's actually a core motivator for their political position. It has to be, or at least should be addressed.

"Act as if your opponent isn't racist or classist" means partially detaching yourself from the reality of the situation, if the current situation is that they are, in fact, racist or classist.

In other words, steelmanning risks misrepresenting your opponent's actual position -- exactly the same flaw as strawmanning, but in the opposite direction.

There's two things at play here. One is your political opinions vs theirs, the other is your arguments for how you should handle a specific concrete situation. Crucially, the former doesn't (edit: necessarily) change the merits of the latter.

Would you accept the thrust of their argument if it came from a different (non-racist/classist) speaker? Then their racism is just a bug you can dismiss. Focusing on it is actually a straw man, because that's not germane to the argument they're actually making!

Does the argument hinge, at its core, on unspoken racist assumptions? Then it's a fundamental part of the argument and you need to tackle it.

> I don't think we should preemptively avoid points within an issue just because our opponent is either weak or strong on them.

When steelmanning, the points avoided are points your opponent never made.

That's not how steelmanning is generally described. It's usually described as, "construct the best possible form of your opponent's argument." If they made some weak points in their argument, steelmanning would involve either ignoring those or reconstructing them to be stronger.

"Avoid attacking points that your opponent never made" is just the absence of strawmanning, it's not steelmanning.

> It's usually described as, "construct the best possible form of your opponent's argument." If they made some weak points in their argument, steelmanning would involve either ignoring those or reconstructing them to be stronger.

Those two sentences seem contradictory. What definition of steelmanning requires ever ignoring weak points that have been made by one’s opponent?

I think this may depend on what definition you're using, but generally people have multiple points while arguing their case, and it can make sense to drop weaker or more vulnerable points to strengthen the overall argument. Thus, the best possible form of an argument may involve ignoring or reconstructing certain points.

If someone says something vaguely racist while arguing against, say, multi-family housing, the best possible form of their argument would probably involve dropping that -- even if it's actually a significant motivation.

> the best possible form of their argument would probably involve dropping that -- even if it's actually a significant motivation

If a point is so significant, then the result of dropping it would no longer be “their argument.” Doing so would not qualify as steelmanning by any definition I’m aware of—it would be a different argument altogether.

To steelman is effectively to practice the principle of charity, by not assuming irrationality when a plausible rational view exists that fits the same arguments. But if one’s opponent has made an irrational argument, no assumption is necessary!

> I think this may depend on what definition you're using

What definition do you use? It doesn’t match how I’ve ever seen the term used.

> If a point is so significant, then the result of dropping it would no longer be “their argument.”

I think that's debatable. People do shift which points they bring up and how they frame things while still feeling that their essential argument is unchanged.

> What definition do you use? It doesn’t match how I’ve ever seen the term used.

That's probably the rub here: the idea of "best possible form of the argument" leaves a fair amount of room for interpretation. I don't have some single authoritative source for my conception of steelmanning, I've just seen people use the term and I've read it explained in various places a few times.

In my defense, here's a source that agrees with my conception: https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Steelmanning

> Steelmanning involves arguing against the strongest possible version of the other side's argument, whether they made it or not.

And here's a definition that's rather ambiguous: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning

> Steelmanning is the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the strongest possible version of it. It is the opposite of strawmanning.

> In my defense, here's a source that agrees with my conception: https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Steelmanning

> > Steelmanning involves arguing against the strongest possible version of the other side's argument, whether they made it or not.

How bizarre! I would agree that by that definition, “steelmanning” is much less attractive—not something I would never do, but certainly not a practice I would attempt to follow by default.

Suppose I argue: “When SAT-math style comparing (square root of 9) to (1 + 2), it cannot be determined which is larger, therefore the correct answer would be “D-cannot be determined”, in part because a salmon is a mammal.”

Steelmanning would be agreeing with my conclusion while disputing the incorrect salmon point via pointing out that it’s entirely irrelevant to the correctness of my overall argument, even though I directly said the incorrect thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com