The Opposite of Straw Man
A straw man is the weakest version of an argument — a caricature you can easily knock down.
A steel man is the strongest version of an argument — the best case that could be made, even if the person making the argument didn't make it that well.
Steelmanning is the practice of constructing steel men: building the most charitable, strongest interpretation of positions you disagree with.
This isn't about being nice. It's about being effective. If you only defeat weak versions of arguments, you haven't actually engaged with the real challenge.
Why Steelmanning Matters
You Might Be Wrong
If you only engage with weak versions of opposing arguments, you never seriously test your own position. You might be wrong and never find out because you never faced a real challenge.
Steelmanning puts your beliefs at risk. If you can construct a powerful opposing argument and still hold your position, you're on firmer ground. If you can't... maybe it's time to update.
You'll Understand Better
Most people don't understand positions they disagree with. They understand caricatures.
When you steelman a position, you discover nuances you missed. You learn why intelligent people believe it. You find the genuine concerns underlying it, even if the surface expression seems wrong.
You'll Be More Persuasive
You can't change minds you don't understand.
If you want to persuade someone, you need to understand what actually drives their position. The steel man shows you where the real commitments are — what someone would need to be convinced about to change their mind.
You'll Reduce Conflict
Most conflicts involve two sides fighting straw men. Each side thinks the other is stupid or evil because they're fighting caricatures.
When you steelman, you demonstrate genuine understanding. This lowers defensiveness. The other person feels heard rather than attacked. Productive conversation becomes possible.
How to Steelman
Step 1: Identify the Position
State the position you disagree with clearly. Not your interpretation — their interpretation as they would state it.
Ask: "Would someone who holds this view recognize this as their position?"
Step 2: Find the Best Arguments
What are the strongest arguments for this position?
- What evidence supports it?
- What logic leads to it?
- What values is it based on?
Imagine you had to defend this position in a debate. What would you say?
Step 3: Assume Intelligence and Good Faith
Smart, ethical people hold this view. Why?
- What do they know that you might not?
- What experiences led them here?
- What are they trying to protect or achieve?
Don't assume they're stupid, evil, or misinformed. Assume they're reasoning from different premises or prioritizing different values.
Step 4: Identify the Real Disagreement
Once you've steelmanned, you can see where you actually disagree:
- Different facts?
- Different values?
- Different priorities?
- Different predictions?
Often the disagreement is smaller and more specific than it initially appeared.
Step 5: Address the Steel Man
Now argue against the strongest version. If you can defeat the steel man, you've actually engaged the position. If you can't fully defeat it, you've learned something.
AI as Steelmanning Partner
AI is excellent for steelmanning because it doesn't share your tribal loyalties.
Basic Steelman
I disagree with this position: [Position you disagree with]
Help me steelman it:
1. What are the strongest arguments for this position?
2. What evidence supports it?
3. Why might intelligent, ethical people believe this?
4. What values or concerns underlie it?
5. What would I have to believe for this position to seem reasonable?
Don't argue for my side. Help me genuinely understand the other position.
Deep Steelman
I want to deeply understand a position I disagree with:
Position: [The position]
My current understanding: [How you think about it]
Help me see this from the inside:
1. What is it like to hold this view?
2. What does the world look like from this perspective?
3. What problems is this position trying to solve?
4. What would I lose if I adopted this position? What would I gain?
5. If I were to argue for this position, what would my strongest case be?
Finding Real Disagreements
Position A: [Your position]
Position B: [Opposing position]
After steelmanning Position B:
1. Where do these positions actually disagree?
2. Is it facts, values, or priorities?
3. Is there a reconciliation or synthesis?
4. What would each side need to see to change?
Testing Your Steelman
I've tried to steelman this position:
Original position: [The position]
My steelman: [Your attempt]
Evaluate my steelman:
1. Is this actually the strongest version?
2. Would someone who holds this view feel represented?
3. What am I still missing?
4. How can I make it even stronger?
Common Steelmanning Mistakes
Steelmanning Too Little
Tokenism: Adding one good argument but still operating from the straw man.
Fix: The steelman should be strong enough that you could imagine actually holding the position if your values or information were different.
Steelmanning as Performance
Problem: Going through the motions without genuine openness. Steelmanning to seem fair while already certain you're right.
Fix: Approach with genuine curiosity. You should feel at least mild uncertainty after a good steelman. If you don't, you might not have done it honestly.
Confusing Steelmanning with Agreeing
Problem: Thinking that understanding a position means endorsing it.
Fix: Steelmanning is about understanding, not agreeing. You can steelman a position and still reject it — but you'll reject it for better reasons.
Missing the Values
Problem: Steelmanning the logic while missing the underlying values that make the position compelling to its holders.
Fix: Ask not just "What do they argue?" but "What do they care about? What are they trying to protect?"
Steelmanning in Practice
Political Disagreements
Pick any political position you strongly oppose:
Help me steelman [political position you oppose].
I want to understand:
1. What values drive this position?
2. What genuine concerns is it addressing?
3. What would someone with this view say my position gets wrong?
4. What do they see that I might be missing?
Personal Disagreements
In conflicts with people you know:
I had a disagreement with someone:
Their position: [What they argued]
My position: [What I argued]
Steelman their position. Why might they see this situation the way they do? What's valid in their perspective?
Controversial Topics
For charged issues where you feel confident:
I feel strongly about [topic].
My position: [Your view]
Steelman the strongest opposing position:
1. What are the most sophisticated arguments on the other side?
2. What would a thoughtful, informed opponent say?
3. What might they be right about that I'm reluctant to acknowledge?
The Intellectual Turing Test
A strong test for steelmanning: Could you describe the opposing position well enough that someone holding it would think you're on their side?
This is called the "Ideological Turing Test." If you can't pass it, you don't understand the position well enough to critique it fairly.
AI practice:
I'm going to try to argue for [position you oppose] as if I actually believed it.
[Your attempt]
How did I do? Would someone who holds this position feel I represented them fairly? What gives me away as an outsider?
From Understanding to Engagement
Steelmanning is a starting point, not an ending point.
After steelmanning:
- Identify where you still disagree — and why
- Engage with the strongest version — not the weak one
- Acknowledge valid points — partial truth on other side
- Focus on real disagreements — not straw men
- Seek common ground — shared values and concerns
This produces better arguments, better understanding, and sometimes — changed minds (possibly your own).
What's Next
You can analyze arguments, correct for biases, evaluate evidence, and understand opposing views. Now it's time to make decisions.
Chapter 6 covers decision-making frameworks — how to make better choices under uncertainty, from daily decisions to life-changing ones.