▶ ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY (DANIEL DENNETT, AFTER THE PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY)·20–40 MIN

STEELMANNING THE OPPOSITE

Write the strongest possible version of the view you most reject.

What this is

A strawman is a deliberately weak version of an opposing view, made easy to knock down. A steelman is the opposite: the strongest version, articulated as well as the smartest defender of that view would. The discipline of steelmanning is the closest thing intellectual life has to a fitness test. If you can't write a steelman of your opponent's view that they would recognize as fair, you don't actually understand their position — you're arguing against a phantom of your own making.

Steps

1.Pick a view you reject — political, ethical, religious, methodological. Pick something that genuinely irritates you.
2.Imagine the most thoughtful person who holds this view. What life experience would have led them there?
3.Write 250 words defending the view in the first person, as if you held it. Use the strongest arguments and evidence available, not the embarrassing ones.
4.Now ask: is there any part of this steelman that, if you're honest, you find more compelling than you'd previously admitted?
5.Optional: send the steelman to someone who actually holds the view. Ask if you got it right.

▸ AFTER

Did anything in writing the steelman shift your confidence in your own position — even slightly? Where did the resistance come from when it did?

Reflections you write below are saved to your trajectory — Claude reads the prose and adds a small dimensional shift to your map, the same way it does for daily dilemmas and diary entries.

Create an account Sign in

More on this practice

The principle of charity in philosophy is older than the term steelman: when interpreting an opponent, take their argument in its strongest form, not its weakest. Daniel Dennett's modern statement of it — in Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking — is that you should be able to express an opposing view so well that the opposite party says 'thanks, I wish I'd thought of that'.

This is the closest thing intellectual life has to a fitness test. If you can't write a steelman of your opponent's view that they would recognize as fair, you don't actually understand their position; you've been arguing against a phantom of your own making. Most political and religious arguments are conducted between people in this state, on both sides.

The cost of the practice is real. If you genuinely write a strong version of a view you reject, you sometimes find yourself less sure of your own. This is uncomfortable but valuable. The alternative — going through life confident that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or evil — is much worse, even if it feels better.

Common pitfalls

Writing a steelman that's really still a strawman ('the strongest version is still ridiculous because...'). If the holder of the view wouldn't recognize themselves in your account, you haven't done the exercise.
Picking a position that's actually toothless. Steelman a view you find genuinely irritating, not one you're indifferent to.
Refusing to include the strongest argument because it would weaken your side. That's the whole point.

A worked example

You strongly believe the work-from-home revolution is a clear good. Steelman the opposite: the case for in-office work. You write 250 words about how mentorship of junior employees happens by osmosis in shared spaces, how culture is hard to maintain over Slack, how home isolation correlates with measurable mental-health declines, how some kinds of cross-team collaboration require physical proximity. You find, when you read it back, that you'd revise your previous claim from 'clear good' to 'good with significant tradeoffs the field hasn't fully reckoned with.' That revision is the exercise working.

Thinkers in this lineage

Daniel Dennett — Intuition Pumps codifies steelmanning as a tool, attributing the underlying logic to Anatol Rapoport.
Anatol Rapoport — Game theorist whose rules for productive disagreement underlie the practice.
John Stuart Mill — On Liberty Ch. 2 makes the case that holding a view without engaging its best opponent leaves the view itself shallow.

Where to read further

Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking
Daniel Dennett · 2013
The contemporary toolkit; steelmanning sits alongside other moves of the same family.
On Liberty
John Stuart Mill · 1859
Chapter 2 is the classical defense of why we need to take opponents seriously.

Pairs well with

Kindred practices

Ideological Turing test — Bryan Caplan's variant — write the opposing view convincingly enough to be mistaken for an actual believer.

▶ What to do next