Coaching practices for Wiseman Debate Maker
Describe almost anything you are working through and IX Coach finds the practices whose real-world fit is closest. For Wiseman Debate Maker, these are the strongest matches in the current practice library.
Does this sound like the set of challenges you might be facing?
- I tend to decide on my own and then use the meeting just to announce it
- There are a few ways to read the view I’m up against, and I keep reaching for the flimsiest one because it’s the easiest to knock down
- I catch myself arguing against the weakest, dumbest version of what they said
- I wave through arguments on my side that I’d tear apart in a heartbeat if the other side made them
- I’ve settled on my position and I can feel how much I want it to be right, which is exactly why I don’t trust it yet
Practices that may help
- Make decisions through debate, not declaration
Multipliers use real debate to engage the team’s best thinking before deciding; Diminishers use meetings to announce.
Multipliers: How Leaders Amplify the Intelligence Around Them - Find the strongest version of the opposing view
If there are multiple ways to interpret a position, choose the most defensible one.
Steelmanning - Steel-man before you rebut
Restate the opposing view in its strongest form before you argue against it.
Productive Disagreement, Made Practical - Apply the double-standard check: would I accept this reasoning if it pointed the other way?
Test whether you are holding your team’s arguments to a lower bar than the other side’s.
The Scout Mindset - Steelmanning
Steelmanning — popularized by Daniel Dennett as a core intellectual virtue — means reconstructing an opposing position in its strongest, most charitable form before responding to it. It is the deliberate inverse of strawmanning. The practice is well-established in philosophy and structured debate; direct experimental evidence for its effects on reasoning quality is limited, but its mechanism is logically sound. - Ask what alternative perspectives would say
Deliberately steelman the strongest objection to your current position before treating it as settled.
Socratic Questioning - Negotiate from abundance, not scarcity
Question the assumption that what one side gains the other must lose.
The Third Alternative, Made Practical - Apply Dennett’s four rules for critical commentary
Before criticizing: restate charitably, list agreements, name what you’ve learned, then — and only then — rebut.
Steelmanning - Recognize decoys in political and narrative framing
In debates and narratives, an extreme position is often introduced to make a moderate position seem reasonable — identify this before updating.
The Decoy Effect — How an Irrelevant Option Changes Your Choice - Steelman the opposing view before rebutting it
Reconstruct the strongest possible version of the argument you disagree with — then respond to that.
Naive Realism: Why Everyone Thinks They See Things as They Are
Related concerns
- Devil Advocate Vs Real Opponent
Find someone whose genuine prior is the opposite of yours, and work together on the same evidence.
Invite an adversarial collaborator
- How To Avoid Strawmanning
Reconstruct the strongest possible version of the argument you disagree with — then respond to that.
Steelman the opposing view before rebutting it
- How To Steelman
Steelmanning — popularized by Daniel Dennett as a core intellectual virtue — means reconstructing an opposing position in its strongest, most charitable form before responding to it. It is the deliberate inverse of strawmanning. The practice is well-established in philosophy and structured debate; direct experimental evidence for its effects on reasoning quality is limited, but its mechanism is logically sound.
- Steel Man Argument
Steelmanning — popularized by Daniel Dennett as a core intellectual virtue — means reconstructing an opposing position in its strongest, most charitable form before responding to it. It is the deliberate inverse of strawmanning. The practice is well-established in philosophy and structured debate; direct experimental evidence for its effects on reasoning quality is limited, but its mechanism is logically sound.
- Steelman Argument
Steelmanning — popularized by Daniel Dennett as a core intellectual virtue — means reconstructing an opposing position in its strongest, most charitable form before responding to it. It is the deliberate inverse of strawmanning. The practice is well-established in philosophy and structured debate; direct experimental evidence for its effects on reasoning quality is limited, but its mechanism is logically sound.
- Steelman Vs Sycophancy
Charitably interpreting a position is not the same as agreeing with it, refusing to disagree, or softening your critique to avoid conflict.
Distinguish steelmanning from sycophancy
Describe your situation in your own words to search the complete practice library.