Meetup idea: steelmaning

[John Salvatier]

What do you guys think about this as a meetup activity:

Everyone thinks of a common argument where they disagree with the conclusion the argument argues for. For example, if you're a libertarian, maybe you hear the argument "the government has the power to help poor people, and helping poor people is good, so the government should spend a lot on welfare" but disagree with the conclusion. After we come up with such arguments we split into groups and try to improve someone's argument as much as possible; turning it into a steelman argument instead of a strawman argument. 

The topic doesn't have to be political, obviously, that's just what first popped into my head (I used to be very libertarian). 

Thoughts? Would we have trouble coming up with good material?

[Spencer Campbell]

I friggin' love this idea. But what would we do with all those steelmen? Can we like ... put up a prize for whichever steelman ends up having the greatest strength-to-disagreeableness ratio?

It'd be nice to have a large stock of strawmen to draw from well in advance of the meetup, so we don't spend the whole time trying to think up common, bad arguments.

[John Salvatier]

Yes a stock of premade ideas is a good idea. It seems like it would help if people are fixing arguments for ideas they personally dont buy though.

[Morgan Catha]

What is a steelman argument?

[John Salvatier]

The opposite of a strawman: a strawman is an argument that's just a caricature of your opponents argument, a steelman is an argument that's better than your opponent's argument.

[Morgan Catha]

What's the point of the exercise?

On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM, John Salvatier

[John Salvatier]

My notion was to practice making someone else's arguments better.

[Morgan Catha]

Yeah, but why?

On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM, John Salvatier

[Matt Powell]

Why make an argument you disagree with stronger?

Because it aids communication.  It is possible that your opponent is right, but bad at defending their argument.

Because it your arguments deserve worthy opponents.

Because starting out right is less important than ending up right.

Why practice?  Because that's how you get better.

Why do this in a group?  Because then you can drink.

--
Jesse, please try to keep your educated opinion from trampling all over the ground-breaking and insightful work of a layperson.
-- Alan Taylor

[Matt Powell]

Fantastic!

Here I thought I was the only one here who intentionally does harm.  It's good to know that's not the case.  Have you and I talked about morality at some point already that I've forgotten?

Back on topic, I expect John means to see the technique practiced to more constructive ends.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  A time for everything and all.

On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Morgan Catha <morgan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Very charitable, Matt.  The thing is, steelmanning is actually one of
my favorite sports, but I've usually done it in order to humiliate and
discredit the other person.  :P

[Morgan Catha]

I'd be more interested in the following group exercise:

We bring in a fixer-upper argument, one we often find ourselves
failing to sell other people on. We present our argument to the
group, and everyone helps us hone our presentation and powers of
persuasion using body language, appeals to authority and empathy, and
other brainstem hacks.

[Matt Powell]

Pah.

That exercise makes tables and chairs.

John's exercise makes tools.

[Morgan Catha]

But I WANT tables and chairs! :)

[Matt Powell]

I think more attendees will benefit from better tools than would benefit from a better chair.

[Walid Wahed]

Could we build tools and then use them to make a table and some chairs?

[John Salvatier]

Haha

[John Salvatier]

Perhaps we could build steel tables and chairs. We'd probably need steelworking tools.

[Jack Thompson]

A relevant post from Lukeprog on CommonSenseAtheism:

"A Hierarchy of Disagreements" (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13435)

And an excerpt that might help answer the above questions:

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don’t have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don’t want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

-Jack

[Christopher Wright]

People don't need much added motivation or practice to improve their own
arguments. It's less common to improve arguments against your point of view.

Also, by practicing shoring up arguments you disagree with, you still get
practice improving arguments. You can apply those same techniques to views that
you hold.

So we could take your suggestion, and practice a rationality muscle that's
probably already rather strong for all of us; or we can go with John's, and
practice several at once, some of which are less used.

Quoting Morgan Catha (2012-06-10 06:59:54)

[Guy Srinivasan]

Seems like a fun idea. Both this and Morgan's "improve persuasiveness". That makes two fun ideas. Not at the same time though.

Guy