Conquer Club

You know when someone makes an argument, and you know you can get away with making it seem like they made a much worse one, so you attack that argument for points? That’s strawmanning. Lots of us have done it, even though we shouldn’t. But what if we went one step beyond just not doing that? What if we went one better? Then we would be steelmanning, the art of addressing the best form of the other person’s argument, even if it’s not the one they presented.
...
I, and all of you, I think, care a great deal about what is true. One of the ways we find out what is true is to smash our arguments against each other and see what comes out, abandoning the invalid arguments and unsound conclusions for better and brighter ideas as we march towards Truth. Perhaps the greatest limitation on this method is the finitude of the arguments we can possibly encounter. By chance, we may never be exposed to good arguments for other positions or against our own, in which case we may wrongly but reasonably discount other positions as unsupported and incorrect, and we would never know.

So we need to find better arguments. Where? Well, aside from sitting in rooms alone arguing with ourselves (guilty), we have the opportunity to construct these better arguments every time we are arguing with someone. We probably know best which arguments are most difficult for our position, because we know our belief’s real weak points and what kind of evidence we tend to find compelling. So I challenge you, when arguing with someone, to use that information to look for ways to make their arguments better, more difficult for you to counter. This is the highest form of disagreement.

If you know of a better counter to your own argument than the one they’re giving, say so. If you know of evidence that supports their side, bring it up. If their argument rests on an untrue piece of evidence, talk about the hypothetical case in which they were right. Take their arguments seriously, and make them as good as possible. Because if you can’t respond to that better version, you’ve got some thinking to do, even if you are more right than the person you’re arguing with. Think more deeply than you’re being asked to.

In this way, you both learn, and you’re having discussions of the highest level you’re capable of, really grappling with the ideas instead of bringing up rehearsed points and counterpoints. It is a difficult task, but it forces us to face those arguments that might actually pose problems for us, instead of just what we happen to see around us. This ensures that we have the right answer, not just a successful answer.

MeDeFe wrote:Sure is metal in here.

Funkyterrance wrote:Why the f*ck are you spamming this thread, guys?
I think the notion of arguing in search of truth is greatly lacking here because everyone seems to have adopted a "persona" and fears they will lose their reputation if they stray at all from this persona. BBS likes free markets and is never wrong, notyou is an absolute cynic, nietszche is a chauvinistic douchenozzle, Serbia is a meat-headed sports enthusiast etc, etc,.

Funkyterrance wrote:So yeah, I think the reason the Steelman argument isn't used more is due to the fact that people are set in their ways in regard to thought processes. It's too painful/scary for most people to think that maybe their way of dealing with new ideas potentially threatening to their current belief system. The shame of it is that this mode of being is probably a retardant if not toxic. If my "persona" is a pompous ass, maybe I should work on that. I'm at least open to the possibility.

Funkyterrance wrote:So yeah, I think the reason the Steelman argument isn't used more is due to the fact that people are set in their ways in regard to thought processes. It's too painful/scary for most people to think that maybe their way of dealing with new ideas is potentially threatening to their current belief system. The shame of it is that this mode of being is probably a retardant if not toxic. If my "persona" is a pompous ass, maybe I should work on that. I'm at least open to the possibility.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
1. It's difficult to select a key issue then argue against it if one doesn't understand/isn't familiar enough with the literature.
2. It's usually more costly, more risky (e.g. Viceroy limiting himself to his fundamental premise: God exists, and then watch him defend that. He'll lapse into his logical fallacies, so it's easier for him to ignore that and focus on minor points on evolution).
3. The payoffs are small. The steelman approach is best for publishable research--not bullshitting on the internet.
4. If one has more on the mind, then why not say it instead of restricting oneself to one issue?
5. I never considered you to be a pompous ass, but c'mon you'd make a great museum exhibit!

BigBallinStalin wrote:3. The payoffs are small. The steelman approach is best for publishable research--not bullshitting on the internet.

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
1. It's difficult to select a key issue then argue against it if one doesn't understand/isn't familiar enough with the literature.
2. It's usually more costly, more risky (e.g. Viceroy limiting himself to his fundamental premise: God exists, and then watch him defend that. He'll lapse into his logical fallacies, so it's easier for him to ignore that and focus on minor points on evolution).
3. The payoffs are small. The steelman approach is best for publishable research--not bullshitting on the internet.
4. If one has more on the mind, then why not say it instead of restricting oneself to one issue?
5. I never considered you to be a pompous ass, but c'mon you'd make a great museum exhibit!

A. We can most of the time easily condense any pertinent literature/concepts so that they are digestible on an online forum. Most of the time we aren't discussing rocket science.

B. Bullshitting, just like anything done to excess, gets boring and leaves something to be desired. Besides, if we're all just bullshitting, why do so many on here fear looking foolish? Isn't looking foolish part of a healthy bullshitting session?
Anyway, cutting through the bullshit periodically can be very refreshing.

C. It's not costly/low payoff if you enter into an argument seeking more closeness to the truth rather than blindly and/or slickly defending your own argument at all costs. You may actually come away being wiser than when you started. I daresay that's extremely rewarding but requires a certain amount of humbleness, not a quality you see much of on here, myself included.

Funkyterrance wrote:A.Yeah, really. It's tough on the ego but the truth hurts.
B.If you shoot the shit constantly it gets old, just like anything else.
C.Isn't it though? But tell me, what's the reward for blindly blowing off one's own tired opinions/theories/belief systems over and over and over again with no real consideration for the opposing argument? If I ever heard of a poor exchange, that's it.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:A.Yeah, really. It's tough on the ego but the truth hurts.
B.If you shoot the shit constantly it gets old, just like anything else.
C.Isn't it though? But tell me, what's the reward for blindly blowing off one's own tired opinions/theories/belief systems over and over and over again with no real consideration for the opposing argument? If I ever heard of a poor exchange, that's it.

FT, your perception of me is mistaken. Perhaps since you don't like being wrong, you'll continue this strawman about me.

Let anger or stupidity be your Muse, I guess.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:3. The payoffs are small. The steelman approach is best for publishable research--not bullshitting on the internet.

This is sort of why I don't put more sources and time into my posts. Ultimately, I'm not going to convince whomever I'm arguing against, so the payoff is too small. I really only do it when I want to make someone look stupid or make others believe me, and even then I feel like I get a lot of untyped "tl;dr" or "oh, that TGD, always trying to do lawyer stuff."

Metsfanmax wrote:Just to be clear, all of you who aren't interested in being the best possible versions of yourselves, and learning the most from your peers and about yourself, are welcome to exit the thread.

Funkyterrance wrote:So yeah, I think the reason the Steelman argument isn't used more is due to the fact that people are set in their ways in regard to thought processes. It's too painful/scary for most people to think that maybe their way of dealing with new ideas is potentially threatening to their current belief system. The shame of it is that this mode of being is probably a retardant if not toxic.

jonesthecurl wrote:Also many posts are such a mish-mash of unconnected facts myths and opinions that it's honestly difficult to understand what's meant, or how much the poster would appreciate any attempt at clarification. Sometimes I jump in and summarize one or both sides so we can cut to the chase.

Phatscotty wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:So yeah, I think the reason the Steelman argument isn't used more is due to the fact that people are set in their ways in regard to thought processes. It's too painful/scary for most people to think that maybe their way of dealing with new ideas is potentially threatening to their current belief system. The shame of it is that this mode of being is probably a retardant if not toxic.

Interesting that Mets brought this up. I often pass up a lot of opportunities to steelman, a few times it was in fact because I wan uncertain as to where the topic could wind up where it could easily be made to look like I just debunked myself. But when that happens it's a time for further private investigation and premise checking.

I guess it depends on respect. If I knew the person I was talking to was objective and not interested in scoring points other than a friendly sense of humor and was motivated to think out the issue and define where we stand and why, I would easily steelman as often as I could.

Other times and much more numerous, I do not steel man because the person I am talking to is still stuck on a lower level argument (imo) and you can't really get to the deeper aspects until certain things are known and accepted or not.