Steel Manning
Steel Manning: Before criticising a position, construct the strongest, most charitable version of it. If you can't articulate the position as its proponents would, you don't understand it well enough to refute it β and you may be wrong. The test: could the person who holds the view agree your version is accurate? If not, you're straw-manning, not steel-manning.
What Is Steel Manning?β
Steel Manning is named as the opposite of the well-known "straw man" fallacy (misrepresenting an opponent's argument in a weak form to make it easier to attack). Steel Manning reverses the direction: deliberately strengthen and extend an opposing argument before engaging with it.
The practice was championed by philosopher Daniel Dennett, who outlined a version in his "Rules for Critical Thinking" (originally Anatol Rapoport's guidelines): before criticising, demonstrate that you understand the position well enough that the person holding it would agree your version is accurate.
Steel Manning has two distinct uses:
- Epistemic: A commitment to understanding positions accurately before judging them β the foundation of intellectual honesty
- Strategic: Understanding the best version of opposing views so you can address the strongest objections, not just the weakest ones
How It Worksβ
The Steel Manning process:
1. State the position you intend to criticise
2. Try to articulate why someone smart, informed, and thoughtful
would hold that view
3. Find the strongest version of the argument β not the most
common or most extreme, but the most defensible
4. Identify the most compelling evidence and reasoning for the view
5. Test: would the position's best proponents agree this is accurate?
6. Only then: criticise, refute, or update your own view
Key tests for a good steel man:
β Would the person agree? "Yes, that's what I believe and why"
β Does it use the strongest evidence, not the weakest?
β Does it explain the view from the inside, not just describe it
from the outside?
β Does it acknowledge the position's genuine strengths?
Common failure modes:
β Straw man: attacking the weakest version of the view
β Hollow steel man: claiming to steelman while actually
describing a less threatening version
β Steel manned concession: steelmanning to death ("well,
they have a point") rather than ultimately evaluating
Three Real-World Examplesβ
Policy Debate: Arguments Against Free Tradeβ
A pro-free-trade economist arguing without steel manning would attack: "protectionists think tariffs are good because they don't understand comparative advantage." The steel-manned version: "The case against free trade considers that: (1) comparative advantage theory assumes factors of production move freely between sectors, which they often don't in practice; (2) the gains from trade are real but distributed very unequally β specific workers and communities bear concentrated losses while benefits are diffuse; (3) dynamic comparative advantage suggests industrial policy can create new competitive advantages that static models miss; (4) national security considerations legitimately restrict pure economic optimisation." This version is harder to dismiss and more honest about trade-offs.
Product Decisionsβ
A product manager proposing to remove a feature shouldn't dismiss user objections without steel-manning them: "Users just resist change" is a straw man. The steel-manned version: "Users who rely on this feature have built workflows around it that would require significant time investment to rebuild; they reasonably fear that if this is removed, similar features might also be removed; and they don't trust that the replacement will cover their use case." This version leads to better decisions β either addressing the legitimate concerns or understanding why the feature can't be saved.
Climate Science Debateβ
A climate scientist engaging with sceptical arguments should know the strongest versions: not "they just don't believe in science" (straw man), but "the strongest sceptical case argues that: natural climate variability is larger than models account for; the satellite temperature record shows less warming than surface station records; and climate models have historically overestimated warming in some prediction windows." Engaging with this version produces more robust scientific and communication strategies than dismissing sceptics.
When to Apply Itβ
β Steel Manning is essential when:
- Your argument will be presented in adversarial contexts (debates, negotiations, board pitches)
- You're making a significant decision that could be wrong
- You disagree with someone you respect β their view may deserve more consideration
- You're about to write or speak publicly about a contested topic
β Don't over-apply it:
- Some positions are genuinely weak and have no strong version to construct
- Steel Manning can become a form of procrastination from making necessary decisions
- In crisis situations requiring decisive action, nuanced steelmanning can be paralyzing
| Pairs well with | Why |
|---|---|
| Confirmation Bias | Steel Manning directly counteracts confirmation bias in argumentation |
| Pre-mortem | Pre-mortem is steel-manning your own plan's weaknesses |
| Socratic Method | Both tools sharpen thinking through rigorous engagement |
| Hanlon's Razor | Both start from charitable interpretation |
Common Misuses and Limitationsβ
Performing steel manning rather than doing it. "I understand the other side β they think X β but they're wrong." If you've articulated a dismissible version, you haven't actually steel-manned. The test is whether the other person would recognise their view in your description.
Steel manning as an excuse for indecision. "Well, the other side has strong arguments too..." can become a way to avoid taking a position. Steel manning is a tool for better thinking, not for perpetual balance. After genuinely engaging with the strongest version, it's still necessary to make judgments.
Not updating after a successful steel man. If you construct a genuinely strong version of an opposing view and find it more compelling than you expected, intellectual honesty requires updating β not returning to your original position regardless.
Related Modelsβ
| Model | Relationship |
|---|---|
| Confirmation Bias | Steel Manning is the antidote to confirmation bias in argumentation |
| Pre-mortem | Pre-mortem is steel-manning your own plans |
| Socratic Method | Both tools for rigorous intellectual engagement |
Frequently Asked Questionsβ
What's the difference between steel manning and playing devil's advocate?
Devil's advocate is arguing for a position you don't believe to stimulate discussion or identify weaknesses. Steel manning is constructing the strongest version of a position to understand it accurately β not to argue it, but to engage with it more honestly. Devil's advocate can be done superficially or rhetorically; steel manning requires genuine intellectual effort to find the best form of a view. The goal also differs: devil's advocate seeks to challenge; steel manning seeks to understand.
How do you know when you've successfully steel-manned a position?
The best test: would the most articulate, knowledgeable advocate of the position say "yes, that's a fair representation of the strongest version of my view"? If you're uncertain, share your steel man with someone who holds the view. A secondary test: can you explain the genuine appeal of the position? If you can't explain why smart, informed people hold the view, your steel man probably isn't strong enough yet.
Can steel manning be used in negotiations?
Yes β and it's often a powerful tactic. When negotiating, explicitly articulating the strongest version of the other party's interests and constraints ("I understand your position is strong because...") signals good faith, builds trust, and often reveals paths to agreement that weren't visible when both sides were defending positions. Fisher and Ury's "principled negotiation" framework (Getting to Yes) is partly built on this insight: understand interests, not just positions, and understand them as generously as possible.
How do you know when you've fully steel-manned an argument?
When the proponent of the view would say "yes, that's a fair representation of what I believe and why." A useful test: share your steel-manned version with someone who holds the view and ask if they'd add anything. The bar is that they'd recognise their position in your articulation β not that you agree with it.
Is steel-manning the same as playing devil's advocate?
Related but different. Devil's advocacy is a role-based practice: someone is assigned to argue the opposing case regardless of their actual views. Steel-manning is an epistemic practice: you genuinely construct the strongest version of the opposing view to test your understanding. Devil's advocacy is a group decision tool; steel-manning is an individual intellectual discipline.
When is steel-manning not appropriate?
When the opposing position is held in bad faith or designed to manipulate rather than to persuade. In adversarial contexts (legal disputes, disinformation), steel-manning may help opponents rather than improve understanding. Also, when a position is so empirically or logically weak that steelmanning would produce a distorted picture β some bad arguments don't have strong versions worth constructing.
Further Readingβ
- Dennett, D. (2013). Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking β Rapoport's rules and steel-manning
- Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes β principled negotiation and interests vs. positions
- Galef, J. (2021). The Scout Mindset β epistemic virtues including steel-manning
Apply with AIβ
π Steel man an opposing argument with MindMax β
This page is part of the MindMax Mental Models Knowledge Base.