The Steel Man Technique: How to Argue Better and Be More Persuasive
constantrenewal.com
constantrenewal.com
Indeed, you cannot "patch up the weaknesses of the other side’s proposition" of someone supporting a sports team or a religious belief. Because there is no real argument, but rather some kind of emotional commitment.
However, if you engage in the exercise a lot, you'll notice that a huge number of debates are around such notions, where ego, identity, and feelings are more important than ideas.
It's certainly true for lots of political beliefs, but also many technical ones where your social situation depends on the result of the debates more than being wright or wrong (e.g: at work).
Not to mention when you are debating, it happens regularly you win not by convincing the other side, but by winning over the popularity contest with the audience of the exchange. This again, has nothing to do with the logic of the discussion.
So even if the technique works for, say, your discussion with your physicist or philosopher friend (in which you probably didn't need it anyway), there is really little value in it if it can't work in the situations with more at stake.
Or to use a more scientific term:
I call BS.
As many people have noted, arguing on the Internet is a spectator sport. You don't need to convince your opponent, but by steel manning his arguments and addressing them, you have a greater chance of convincing the audience.
Yet being that open can be very socially costly, as it was for me. If I'd heard steel man arguments from opponents while still closed to inconvenient truths, then I'd just have accept them without critical thought. And any attacks on that steel man would have been dismissed with whatever was convenient. It devolves into Rube Goldberg levels of mental hoop jumping to stay in that mindset. Though if the alternative is strained relationships or losing ones church community then it becomes second nature, even unconscious.
It's also quite dangerous if you're attached to your beliefs. I rarely walk away from steel manning an argument without being persuaded to some degree into a compromise position.
I used to believe this and found myself frequently arguing for any audience that might happen by versus trying to convince my interlocutor.
But, I have come to believe that, in the "emotional" domains that GP mentions, the dynamic is largely the same for any audience as well.
That is, you're not winning them over either if their beliefs are already set and were also never based on reason in the first place.
I mean, outside of some niche debate club blogs subcultures, who does thus?
When there's a presidential debate, does the debater first improve the other guy's argument that he's corrupt before denying it?
I try to ask myself: "would I make this argument privately?" If not, I probably won't reply publicly. (I often fail to make the right choice, however.)
Which possibility is the "failure" possibility here, that the opposite side gets convinced, or that the opposite side doesn't get convinced? I'd argue the opposite side getting convinced is the failure. This one singular exchange somehow managed to convince him of your viewpoint amidst his entire lifetime of experiences that led him to conclude the opposite.
I think it's the old rationalist way of thinking to think "If your mind isn't changed by a syllogistically correct argument, you must not be arguing in good faith (or otherwise can't be convinced by rationality)."
Everyone arrives at conclusions about various topics from the data they obtain throughout their lives through a continuous complex inference process they cannot communicate. Included in this process is a judgment of which sources are credible and which are less credible. Your friend is more credible than the guy who is showing you a study that contradicts your belief, for the purpose of changing your mind. (There are lots of studies out there so it is not hard to find one that supports your argument.) Trying to distill this complex inference process into a linear argument will necessarily lead to an inaccurate representation of how they arrived at the belief.
Doesn't mean everyone's right, though. Governments, cults, and friend groups are very good at shaping the data an individual receives. Even in these cases, you can see how based on the limited information that they do receive, it is quite reasonable from that internal perspective to believe what they do believe.
Arguments would be better if by "argument" we mean some effort, no matter how difficult, to communicate how you arrived at the beliefs you have, rather than a "well" crafted linear rational argument.
Strong point, have you. How did you arrive at the belief that an argument strengthened by such effort, would be better?
Nevertheless, I'll try to recall how I arrived at this conclusion. The biggest influence was seeing for all my life, the left and right in America each claim the other is stupid, irrational, and un-convinceable by rational argument. When I was 16 it really did seem to me that the right was the irrational side here, but seeing everything come full circle with what's happening on the left these days, I realized it's kind of weird and unlikely that half the population, divided on a political line, is actually worse at thinking than the other half.
(See the bottom of this thread for a vivid example.)
That's not a place to do detailed reasoning. Most people are bad at impromptu and have loads of shit habits. And live impromptu is not necessarily the right setting to shed yourself of shit habits either.
The big value add to steel manning is that you can persuade yourself that your own ideas may infact be the inferior one and more concretely explain why that is the case to other people.
Oh but shoot, cats dont speak English.
Nevermind, dont try and use steelman technique against my cat Luna.
When common truth is seen for what it is, a common good, debate ceases to be an act of violence and domination. It takes on a different meaning, a different purpose, namely, the truth and the arrival at it for the common good of the participants.
I think this is a fundamental difference between the East and the West. It’s also why in situations like the pandemic, the East can band together with less friction whereas places like the US fall apart completely. There are few reasons for westerners to rally toward a cause in unison - the last time it happened was during the civil rights movement. Hard to imagine people coming together like that today.
It can seem like that's true based on the view that those in authority in the United States and elsewhere had correct information, and disseminated it as soon as they could.
However, the authorities in the US and in other countries did NOT properly use their authority, and acted in a manner that betrayed that trust. We in the West are far less trusting of authority, and this was reinforced by their failures during that public health emergency.
Trusting completely in Authority was the main thing we fought against in WWII. "Just following orders" isn't a valid excuse for war crimes.
On the smaller scale, we midwesterners, at least, band together to help each other out during the Winters when things get snowed in, and to recover from other urgent situations, it's deep in our DNA.
The West's social organization is just tribal vs national.
For instance, all of U.S. politics fits neatly into just two political parties.
And, ironically, the idea of individualism itself is a prominent membership hook for one of the two binary tribes.
Of course even that is mostly an illusion since suburbia is subsidized by food from rural communities and income from rich clusters.
It's also kind of unhealthy to live such atomized lives, at least for many people. Alone time is important to me, yet I've come around to appreciating friendly community of all kinds.
Except ... it doesn't.
There are American Marxists. There are anarcho-capitalist libertarians. There are ethno-Christian nationalists. And more ...
If it appears to "fit" into two political parties, that has more to do with what aspects of American politics appears in whatever media you see, which in turn reflects both the formal powers of those two parties, and their informal power (e.g. the Overton window).
I take your point, but "all" in my comment wasn't intended to be taken literally. In fact, your list could've actually been much longer, but the point is that all of these parties must find a way to express their preferences through one of the two predominant parties—or not at all.
>If it appears to "fit" into two political parties, that has more to do with what aspects of American politics appears in whatever media you see, which in turn reflects both the formal powers of those two parties
In practice, it actually does fit into two political parties, by definition and for exactly the reason you mentioned: they are the only two parties with the formal power to compel the media to express their will. How did that come about in a nation that supposedly embraces individualism?
I didn't intend to say that there are no individualistic beliefs in the U.S. I'm saying the idea that individualism is a dominant or defining characteristic of the U.S. in any practical sense is largely a myth. The overwhelming majority of Americans are happy to fit themselves into one of two political parties. That includes the party that fancies itself one of "rugged individuals", while its members adopt a laundry list of exactly the same beliefs.
I don't know about overwhelming. Typical voter turnout for US presidential elections over the last few decades has been right around 50% (it ticked up notably in 2020). Many people who do not vote report disillusionment with both major parties as a significant reason for their choice.
I've heard similar. Of course, it's hard to know whether they'd also report disillusionment with ten (or whatever) political parties.
And, really, the idea of political parties is itself not wholly compatible with individualism.
But, the broader point is that the current state of affairs seems antithetical to the notion that individualism is a major feature of American society.
American "individualism" reminds me of all the people who call themselves "free thinkers", but managed to free think their way to exactly the same set of beliefs.
There are Anarchists, Communists, Marxists, wtf Antifa is (actually quite Fascistic in their anti-Fascist stance), neoNazis, the Trump faction, normies, leftists, progressivesm (the last 3 definitely kept out of the DNC), actual conservatives, the Religious Fundamentalists(of all religions), then the DNC and RNC duopoly, which is an influence pedaling racket that claims to represent the majority of US citizens, as a fig leaf of legitimacy.
Leftists and progressives, when they vote, tend to vote Democrat, and never vote Republican. Except for that one time when they really wanted Bernie but we don't talk about that.
Antifa's politics would have put them solidly hard left, but like all black activist movements they were commoditized by white liberals, infiltrated by the CIA and rendered impotent and useless. They would either opt out or vote Democrat, simply because that's what black voters and leftists tend to do.
neonazis, trumpists, and religious fundamentalists, when they vote, tend to vote Republican, and never Democrat. Those groups basically form the modern Republican base at the moment.
>the DNC and RNC duopoly, which is an influence pedaling racket that claims to represent the majority of US citizens, as a fig leaf of legitimacy.
They do represent the majority of US citizens. Most US citizens aren't extreme enough not to have their views representable by the mainstream.
That said (and I'll take my lumps for it,) Antifa basically came up as an anti-Trumpist reactionary movement, so still leftist. Probably all wanted Bernie.
Person online acknowledges mistake. Noting the date/time as Internet history. Can't really say anything except "respect".
But, yeah, I don't know what Antifa is in the modern American context. They did seem to arise here as a reaction to Trump. But, oddly, it was referenced then as if they'd always been active in the U.S. I remember thinking, "did I miss something?"
Thereafter, they magically appeared as if on cue when the right needed to be spooked or "motivated", as in 2020. They were a convenient bogeymen.
Combine that with their anonymous nature, "fluid" membership, known alt-right hoaxes and impersonations thereof, and I'd bet they were more false flag than authentic, even if it was initially organic.
I mean, where are they now?
I think that was mostly propaganda. They were "active" in the sense that some form of anti-fascist or extreme leftist movement existed in the US prior to Trump, at least according to the Wikipedia page, but "Antifa" as an identity is clearly post-Trump viral marketing. I guess it depends on how much value you put on the label versus the ideology.
>I mean, where are they now?
Where is the hacker known as "anonymous" now? Even QAnon seems to have mostly fallen off the radar. Have they disappeared, or does the media simply not pay as much attention to them anymore?
I always have to remember that consensus reality is manufactured by capitalist and state interests, it's a product like any other, and its purpose is to influence and monetize first, and reflect objective reality last. Events are always happening in the background that I'm not aware of, simply because it isn't commercially or politically viable to make me aware.
One of the primary arcs in human history has been to recognize the presence of "in-group" and "out-group" others, and, over the long haul increase the number of people considered to be in-group and decrease the size of the out-group.
Doing stuff with people clearly recognizable as part of your in-group is excellent and to be encouraged, but the hard work of making government work is related to figuring out how to function with your out-group(s) too.
Disagree. It's just as advantageous for the West to rally together as it is for the East. But, there are those who are purposely dividing us for their own gain.
In the end, the West had far fewer mortalities compared to the East, so I'll take the West's way of doing things any day of the week.
No, we weren't.
The vaccines aren't cures, they are prophylactics that mitigate the severity of symptoms.
(Also, several were developed in the East.)
> (Also, several were developed in the East.)
Oh? Do tell about their efficacy.
Sufficient distribution of prophylactics for infectious disease can achieve eradication which, while distinct from a cure, is as good or better, but COVID vaccines haven't done that.
Now whether a vaccine is effective or not is a separate, almost orthogonal, dimension for consideration. No single vaccine is 100% effective, so we will always have certain % of cases where vaccines did not prevent the spread of infection and resulting adverse outcomes.
This will stay in place for one more day, staying from Monday we will have the usual political mess.
Now, the East does not have this Christian respect for persons. Indeed, it tends toward the opposite error of subordinating the person to society and instrumentalizing persons and making them expendable for the "greater good". We see something like this in the old pagan societies in the West as well (though, as we often see, this "greater good" is a tyranny). In the traditional, pre-liberal Christian vision, still taught by the Catholic Church, there is a simultaneous recognition and respect for persons, and a recognition of Man's social nature and the common good which precedes him and toward which he has a moral duty. We are born into societies (the family is the first and most important society from which the entire tapestry of mankind is woven). And it is the common good: it isn't the "greater good" of society that permits the sacrifice of others, but a good held in common, and also by which many goods are had, including things like private property, which follows from the common good (liberalism has it exactly backwards, because it conceives private property as prior and proper to the individual first, and the common good as something grudgingly ceded by individuals for common benefit).
"Oh you wanted to say that X but you said Y, which is obviously wrong, so let me answer X instead" when Y was a perfectly valid proposition. What is "steel" and what is "straw" is subjective and open to manipulation. Jordan Peterson does this a lot, it's infuriating to listen to him.
I like the alternative that does sth like the ideological turing test. It goes like this:
- Alice says what she believes
- Bob says what he thinks Alice said
- if Alice disagrees - repeat from the beginning
and then the other way. Eventually when both sides agree the other person understands their point - they can start the actual discussion.
Helps deliver a message a lot more.
Whatever you do and say .. should give you some amount of peace to be at peace.
Pastors often fall into these ruts. They often want to help. The toolbox limits them, audience expectations limit them, their own financial needs depend upon telling people things that won't make them too uncomfortable, and their (ancient) world view has to harmonize with a (modern) world that doesn't fit.
First they translate what you say into their internal language. And then they reply to that.
I am also sceptical it works, but it is worth a try.
Whether your audience is receptive, that's a different matter, horse brought to water and all that.
I don't know what "unjustified starting assumptions" you have in mind, but a stock caricature is the whole "Everything has a cause, so the universe has a cause" thing, which neither Aquinas nor any major proponent in the tradition has ever defended. I'll just link to a post by one such proponent instead of repeating or summarizing it here [0].
[0] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/clarke-on-stock-car...
The left: good governance would be nice
The right: you should die and we will kill you when we get into office
You can't engage on those terms. They're either insincere or very sincere, and either way it's not solvable through dialogue.
edit: formatting
But, in these scenarios, it's rarely about tautology or perfecting the structure of your argument. Yes, you might win on a debate stage. But, you've not moved anyone.
If someone (for example) wants to look or feel smart in a discussion about logic, there’s a shortcut a person can take by casually calling others stupid for even mentioning anything upsetting regardless of whether or not the thing mentioned is real. It’s kind of funny when people invent a fallacy as if language that they find personally distasteful is categorically wrong (especially when the rebuttal is basically “Nuh-uh dummy!”)
Even if someone changes the jersey of the team they're on it doesn't change their ways or mindset without meaningful inner work of reflection + contemplation.
One just needs to reduce bad ideas to more relatable, and provable facts.
The whole notion of manipulating and monetizing other peoples misery for profit is not a sustainable philosophy. Despotic regimes in many political wing extremes traditionally rely on the same sycophantic idealism... Inspiring the naive to surrender their own responsibility to their community, and grandchildren.
I don't really think modern disagreements are about conservative/liberal economic policy, but rather keeping people distracted while everyone gets robbed.
Have a great day, =3
It also works in technical discussions. Being able to fairly explain an approach you disagree with demonstrates good faith, which is often returned.
Bad arguments (particularly of the opposing side) tend to get a lot of attention though social media, making reasonable people seem rare. It’s easy to be dismissive and saves time.
It is an enormous misconception that because they aren't considered 'extreme' right or left they are more rational. Both the extreme left and extreme right in the USA are more anti-war than the center and it's a huge problem in US politics.