Find the strongest version of the opposing view
If there are multiple ways to interpret a position, choose the most defensible one.
Why it works
Most positions exist along a spectrum of formulations — some loose and easily refuted, some precise and hard to refute. The Principle of Charity in philosophy requires engaging the precise, hard-to-refute version. This discipline benefits the steelmanner as much as the holder: by engaging the strongest objection, you discover whether your position actually survives it. If it doesn’t, you’ve updated accurately. If it does, you now have a tested position rather than an unexamined one.
How to do it
- Identify the position you’re engaging with.
- List two or three different ways it could be formulated, from weakest to strongest.
- Choose the strongest formulation and verify: "Could a smart person sincerely hold this version?"
- If yes, proceed to engage with that version. If the strongest version is still indefensible, note why specifically.
Evidence
The Principle of Charity is a foundational norm in analytic philosophy, dating to David Lewis and others. Its rationale is epistemological: you learn more from a strong version of the opposing view than from a weak one. Experimental evidence for its effect on reasoning quality is limited. (mechanistic)
Finding the strongest version requires familiarity with the position’s domain; a well-intentioned steelman by an uninformed person may still misrepresent the view.
Sources
- Dennett (2013), Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking
Common mistake
Presenting as "the strongest version" a formulation that you can defeat, which is steelmanning in name only — the test is whether someone who holds the view would endorse your restatement as their strongest case.
Practice this with IX Coach
7 days free, then $40/month (~$1.30/day).
More practices for Steelmanning
- Restate the opposing view before responding to it
Summarize the other position in a form they would endorse before you say anything critical.
- Separate steelmanning from endorsing
Accurately represent a view without implying you agree with it.
- Steelman objections to your own plans
Before committing to a plan, state the strongest case against it in its most compelling form.
- Find what is genuinely right about positions you disagree with
Most positions you strongly disagree with are right about something important — finding that part is intellectually obligatory.
- Apply Dennett’s four rules for critical commentary
Before criticizing: restate charitably, list agreements, name what you’ve learned, then — and only then — rebut.
- Distinguish steelmanning from sycophancy
Charitably interpreting a position is not the same as agreeing with it, refusing to disagree, or softening your critique to avoid conflict.