I think you're right overall, with one reservation. Let me steelman the anti-steelman view. The context of Noah's article is a request to "steelman" Trump's policy ideas, and this is perhaps one area in which steelmanning doesn't make sense. If a policy is predicated on having a supposed effect and there's no reason to believe it would have that effect, then it would be untruthful to suppose for your opponent's sake that it really would do what they say it would (unless you're making a reductio ad absurdum argument).
This is a fair proviso. Some naïve opinions are both commonplace and based on flawed instincts, and there's probably a minimum threshold of logic and plausibility required for steelmanning to function. For the concept to be sensible, the steel man's constructor needs an assortment of counterarguments to choose from.
It makes a big difference if the argument you're trying to steelman is logical but based on disputed assumptions or facts or whether the argument is illogical (or at least the logic is hard to parse).
It's really hard to do the latter, because you have to yada yada yada to get to the end position. In the former case it's helpful because it highlights that it's really the specific assumptions you're making that are at odds.
But then attempting to steelman the latter is a good exercise because it highlights where you have trouble making the logical leap. But it's the failure to steelman that you should note, not the success.
Noah highlights one key point that has convinced me: in public square arguments are not really arguments. So using honest argumentation on behalf of the opponent, who, you suspect, is not going to pay back with the same respect, is giving up the game.
When there are emotionally charged sound-bite consumers, agreeing in public is dangerous and should be done with care.
It’s not great that that’s where we are, but one can easily lose having objectively better ground, because if emotional landscape we’re in.
In private clubs or scientific circles steelmanning is still a great and noble game, of course.
That's an interesting angle. I'm unsure whether steelmanning's benefits depend as much on a conducive atmosphere as you're suggesting, but I suppose I'm working from the concept of steelmanning as maneuver in an argument. It's def possible that steelmanning isn't a profitable tactic if you're really doing something else. The question is then whether that other thing is worth doing if it's incompatible with steelmanning.
Steel-manning is to actively attempt to understand a position in the light most favourable to the person who holds the position. It doesn't require anything from the steel-manner but an honest effort to be fair in their evaluation. It does not require that you fully understand or defend the position. That comes after they verify whether your evaluation is credible. You've straw-manned steel-manning.
I think you're right overall, with one reservation. Let me steelman the anti-steelman view. The context of Noah's article is a request to "steelman" Trump's policy ideas, and this is perhaps one area in which steelmanning doesn't make sense. If a policy is predicated on having a supposed effect and there's no reason to believe it would have that effect, then it would be untruthful to suppose for your opponent's sake that it really would do what they say it would (unless you're making a reductio ad absurdum argument).
This is a fair proviso. Some naïve opinions are both commonplace and based on flawed instincts, and there's probably a minimum threshold of logic and plausibility required for steelmanning to function. For the concept to be sensible, the steel man's constructor needs an assortment of counterarguments to choose from.
It makes a big difference if the argument you're trying to steelman is logical but based on disputed assumptions or facts or whether the argument is illogical (or at least the logic is hard to parse).
It's really hard to do the latter, because you have to yada yada yada to get to the end position. In the former case it's helpful because it highlights that it's really the specific assumptions you're making that are at odds.
But then attempting to steelman the latter is a good exercise because it highlights where you have trouble making the logical leap. But it's the failure to steelman that you should note, not the success.
Noah highlights one key point that has convinced me: in public square arguments are not really arguments. So using honest argumentation on behalf of the opponent, who, you suspect, is not going to pay back with the same respect, is giving up the game.
When there are emotionally charged sound-bite consumers, agreeing in public is dangerous and should be done with care.
It’s not great that that’s where we are, but one can easily lose having objectively better ground, because if emotional landscape we’re in.
In private clubs or scientific circles steelmanning is still a great and noble game, of course.
That's an interesting angle. I'm unsure whether steelmanning's benefits depend as much on a conducive atmosphere as you're suggesting, but I suppose I'm working from the concept of steelmanning as maneuver in an argument. It's def possible that steelmanning isn't a profitable tactic if you're really doing something else. The question is then whether that other thing is worth doing if it's incompatible with steelmanning.
Steel-manning is to actively attempt to understand a position in the light most favourable to the person who holds the position. It doesn't require anything from the steel-manner but an honest effort to be fair in their evaluation. It does not require that you fully understand or defend the position. That comes after they verify whether your evaluation is credible. You've straw-manned steel-manning.