Steelman the opposing view before rebutting it

Reconstruct the strongest possible version of the argument you disagree with — then respond to that.

Why it works

The straw-man failure mode is a direct output of naive realism: because I perceive my view as obviously correct, the other position must be weak. Steelmanning forces accurate representation by making the intellectual cost of mischaracterization visible, and it often reveals that the disagreement is narrower than it appeared.

How to do it

1. Write or say the opposing view in your own words, in its most generous form.
2. Ask yourself: "Would someone who holds this position recognize my summary as fair?"
3. Only then generate your rebuttal — and direct it at the steelman, not a caricature.

Evidence

Steelmanning is a practitioner norm in critical thinking and philosophy of argument; the underlying mechanism — reducing confirmation bias through deliberate perspective adoption — is consistent with dual-process models of reasoning. (mechanistic)

No direct RCTs on steelmanning as a technique; the label is practitioner-coined, though the cognitive mechanism is well-theorized.

Common mistake

Building a steelman of a position you privately consider absurd and then immediately tearing it down — this signals performance, not genuine inquiry, and the other person usually notices.