Separate steelmanning from endorsing

Accurately represent a view without implying you agree with it.

Why it works

People often resist charitable reconstruction because they fear it will be mistaken for agreement. This causes them to build in distancing language that weakens the steelman — "they claim, without evidence, that X" — which defeats the purpose. Distinguishing "I accurately understand and can state this view" from "I hold this view" removes the social risk of steelmanning and allows the reconstruction to be accurate. The distinction is explicit in Dennett’s formulation: understanding a view well enough to state it is not the same as endorsing it.

How to do it

1. Open steelmans with: "The strongest version of this position, as I understand it, is [X]" and make it clear this is your reconstruction.
2. Follow with your actual position: "My objection to even this strongest version is [Y]."
3. Teach this to others in conversations — name the distinction explicitly when steelmanning to avoid confusion.

Evidence

The endorsement-understanding distinction is a pragmatic norm in philosophical dialogue. No experimental evidence is needed for a clarification of meaning; the practice is justified by the communicative confusion it prevents. (anecdotal)

In politically charged or status-sensitive conversations, even a well-labeled steelman can be misread as endorsement. Context awareness is needed.

Common mistake

Weakening the steelman with distancing language that signals "I don’t really believe this" — the distancing undermines the charitable reconstruction the practice requires.