Steelman

Three short lessons on the oldest rule of a fair argument: say the other side back until they nod, find what you agree on, and only then answer. A parlour game for two chairs.

Spark & Whetstone · sparkwhetstone.org/learn/steelman · CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Answers are at the end, so you can try each question first.

Lesson 1. Say it back until they nod

The philosopher Daniel Dennett set out a short list he called Rapoport's rules, after the game theorist Anatol Rapoport. The first rule is the hardest: before you criticise a view, say it back so clearly and fairly that the other person wishes they had put it that way.

The test is the nod. If they say "yes, that is what I mean", you have understood. If they say "not quite", you try again. Nothing else happens until the nod.

This is called steelmanning: building the strongest version of the other view, the opposite of knocking down a weak one.

Question. Your friend argues that phones should be banned at dinner. Which reply is a steelman?

So you think people who use phones are rude.
You think the meal is the one time we all face each other, and a phone pulls one person away from it. Is that right?
Phones are useful, though.

Say it back. In your own words: how do you know you have understood the other side?

________________________________________________

Lesson 2. Find the shared ground

Rapoport's second and third rules come next. List the points you agree with, especially ones that are not widely agreed. Then say anything you learned from the other person.

This is not politeness for its own sake. It shrinks the argument to the part that is really in dispute, which is usually smaller than either side thought.

Question. After the nod, what comes before your own answer?

The points you agree on, and anything you learned.
A list of their mistakes.
A change of subject to cool things down.

Say it back. Say it back: why name what you agree on before you disagree?

________________________________________________

Lesson 3. Then answer

Only now, the fourth rule says, may you offer your criticism. By this point the other person has heard their view put well, knows where you agree, and is far more likely to listen.

Answer the strong version you built, not the weak one. If your reply only works against a view nobody holds, it was not a reply.

Question. Your reply would only defeat a version of their view that they never held. What has gone wrong?

Nothing; any reply will do once you have listened.
You are answering a weak version instead of the strong one you said back.
You agreed with them too much earlier on.

Say it back. In your own words: which version of the other view do you answer, and why?

________________________________________________

At the table: Two chairs, one question

Players: two people, 12 or older, and anyone who wants to watch. You'll need: two chairs facing each other and a question you honestly disagree on.

Pick a small, real disagreement: a house rule, a film, where to go on holiday.
One person says their view in under a minute. The other says it back until they get the nod.
The listener names one point they agree with and one thing they learned.
Only then does the listener answer. Swap chairs and do it the other way round.

Answers

You think the meal is the one time we all face each other, and a phone pulls one person away from it. Is that right? — The second reply gives their best reason and asks for the nod. The first makes their view weaker than it is; the third skips straight to your answer.
The points you agree on, and anything you learned. — Shared ground and anything you learned come first. Only the part left over is worth arguing about.
You are answering a weak version instead of the strong one you said back. — An answer has to meet the view they nodded at. Defeating a weaker view proves nothing about theirs.