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

1. Identify the position you’re engaging with.
2. List two or three different ways it could be formulated, from weakest to strongest.
3. Choose the strongest formulation and verify: "Could a smart person sincerely hold this version?"
4. 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.