He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them…

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Steelmanning is all about helping your counterpart by crafting the best possible version of their argument.

The steel man argument is the opposite of strawmanning, the (wilful) misrepresentation of a position to make it easier to attack. As such, steelmanning is a seemingly selfless act. The whole point of it is to polish up the very position you do not hold. Or at least think you don’t.

Steelmanning, on the other hand, takes an existing counter position with the intent to make it as strong as possible. While devil’s advocacy can be a fun contrarian exercise, the steel man requires a bit more – shall we say – willpower.

1. Create the Best Version of Your Counterpart’s Argument

if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion…

Treat a contentious subject as if you were getting to know a new person or discovering a new culture.

the more we feel disagreement with what we discover, the more our views are challenged, the more we‘re getting closer to the full picture.

Putting it in writing also helps structure our thoughts and discover any holes in our argumentation.

2. Help Your Counterpart Steelman Their Argument

Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…

Note that we still don’t have to agree with anything the other person says. We’re just helping them to make the best possible case for whatever they believe. At the same time, we’ve seen the world through their eyes, which gets us another step closer to the truth.

3. Argue On Your Counterpart’s Behalf

He must know [the reasons on the opposite side] in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty.

Motivated reasoning describes our tendency to justify the position that suits our emotional desire – even when it goes against the evidence.

The whole challenge is not very practical in an everyday situation. I think it’s best suited for emotional high-stakes topics. When you’re in the business of getting it right.

Easier on the ego, less effort and time-saving. But it doesn’t get us closer to the truth.