Restate the opposing view before responding to it

Summarize the other position in a form they would endorse before you say anything critical.

Why it works

Restating a position before responding forces genuine engagement with its content rather than with your internal representation of it — which is shaped by motivated reasoning. The act of articulating the view in words the holder would accept requires accessing its actual structure, not the simplified proxy your objections were already aimed at. This creates a real target for the response rather than an easier invented one.

How to do it

1. In written responses, open with: "If I understand correctly, your position is [restatement]."
2. Make the restatement at least as long and specific as the part you intend to challenge.
3. Ask or check: "Is that a fair characterization?" and revise until the holder agrees.
4. Only then introduce your challenge.

Evidence

Active listening research shows that paraphrasing before responding increases perceived understanding and reduces defensive escalation. The specific application to argument quality — reducing strawmanning — is philosophically documented but not extensively studied experimentally. (mechanistic)

Restating before responding can feel performative if done formulaically and insincerely. The practice requires genuine engagement, not a sentence that reads "I understand you think X" followed by ignoring X.

Sources

• Rogers (1951), Client-Centered Therapy — on accurate empathy and understanding as precondition for helpful dialogue

Common mistake

Restating a weak or incomplete version of the view — which still allows you to defeat the version you created rather than the one being made — while claiming you steelmanned it.