Steel Manning: How to Argue with Intellectual Honesty
Most arguments go badly. People talk past each other, attack caricatures of opposing views, and leave more polarized than before. There's a better way: steel manning.
Steel manning means presenting the strongest possible version of an opposing argument before responding to it. It's the opposite of straw manning—where you attack a weakened, distorted version of what someone believes.
This technique is essential for genuine critical thinking and productive disagreement.
The Problem with Straw Man Arguments
A straw man argument misrepresents a position to make it easier to attack:
- Person A: "I think we should have stronger gun regulations."
- Person B: "So you want to take away everyone's guns and leave us defenseless!"
Person B attacks a position Person A didn't take. This might score rhetorical points but doesn't address the actual disagreement.
Logical fallacies like straw manning are tempting because they're easy. Defeating a weak version of an argument feels like winning. But you haven't actually engaged with the real position.
What Steel Manning Looks Like
Steel manning reconstructs an argument in its strongest form:
- Person A: "I think we should have stronger gun regulations."
- Person B: "So you're saying that even if the Second Amendment protects gun ownership, there's still room for reasonable regulation—like we regulate cars or speech—and that certain regulations could reduce deaths while respecting gun rights. Is that a fair representation?"
Now Person B can respond to what Person A actually believes, and the conversation might go somewhere.
How to Steel Man
Step 1: Genuinely understand the position
Before responding, ensure you understand what someone actually believes—not what's easiest to attack.
- "What do you mean by...?"
- "Can you give me an example?"
- "What's the strongest argument for this view?"
Step 2: Articulate it in their terms
Express their position the way they would express it, not in your hostile framing.
Bad: "You think poor people deserve to starve."
Good: "You believe that market mechanisms are more effective than government programs at creating prosperity, including for the poor."
Step 3: Add charitable interpretations
If something is ambiguous, interpret it in the most reasonable way.
Step 4: Strengthen weak points
If you see gaps in their argument, fill them with the strongest available reasoning—then address that.
Step 5: Confirm your understanding
Check with them: "Is this a fair representation of your view?" Only proceed once they agree.
Why Steel Manning Matters
It leads to truth: If you can only defeat weak versions of opposing arguments, you haven't proven anything. Defeating the strong version is genuinely informative.
It demonstrates understanding: Others are more receptive when they feel understood. Steel manning builds trust and opens dialogue.
It improves your own thinking: Seriously engaging with opposing views often reveals nuances you missed. Sometimes you'll change your mind—that's learning.
It models intellectual virtue: Steel manning shows you value truth over winning. This encourages others to engage honestly too.
It focuses on what matters: Rather than quibbling about phrasing, you engage with the substantive disagreement.
Steel Manning in Practice
In political discussions:
Instead of: "Conservatives just hate poor people."
Try: "Many conservatives believe that free markets and limited government intervention create more opportunity and prosperity than redistributive policies, even for those at the bottom. They may genuinely believe their approach helps the poor more in the long run."
Then you can address the actual question: which approach actually helps more?
In personal conflicts:
Instead of: "You're just being controlling."
Try: "I think you're concerned about X, and you're expressing it by Y. You want to help, but the way it's coming across feels like control to me."
This opens conversation rather than triggering defensiveness.
In academic contexts:
Before critiquing a theory or paper, present it in its strongest form. Show you understand what's valuable about it. Then your critique carries more weight.
Common Mistakes
Fake steel manning: Pretending to present the strongest version while subtly weakening it. "So you believe X, which I guess makes sense if you don't think about it too hard..."
Steel manning then ignoring: Presenting a strong version, then attacking a weak point anyway. If you steel man, engage with the steel man.
Endless steel manning: At some point, you've understood the position well enough. You don't need perfect understanding to respond.
Steel manning bad faith: If someone is clearly arguing in bad faith or making offensive claims, you're not obligated to strengthen their argument.
When Not to Steel Man
Steel manning isn't always appropriate:
- Genuinely bad arguments: Some positions really are weaker than their proponents realize. You're not obligated to invent support.
- Time constraints: Sometimes you need to respond quickly.
- Bad faith opponents: Someone uninterested in honest dialogue doesn't deserve the effort.
- Harmful positions: You needn't strengthen arguments for positions that cause harm.
But in genuine intellectual inquiry and honest disagreement, steel manning should be the default.
Building the Habit
Steel manning is difficult because it requires suppressing our natural defensiveness. Practice with these exercises:
- Before responding to any argument, write out the strongest version of it.
- When you disagree with someone, ask: "What would I need to believe for this to make sense?"
- Find the smartest proponents of views you oppose and read their work.
- Practice saying: "I think the strongest version of your argument is..."
The Ultimate Test
You've truly steel manned a position when someone who holds that view says: "Yes, that's exactly what I believe, and you've expressed it as well as I could."
That's intellectual honesty—and it's the foundation of productive disagreement.
Related Reading
Listen to the Full Course
Master honest reasoning in Critical Thinking: Sharpen Your Mind.