Contents
1. Introduction
Imagine a televised debate. One candidate says: “We must increase taxes on the super-wealthy in order to fund education.” His opponent responds: “He wants to make everyone poor and destroy business.” This is the classic strawman — the “man of straw”: a living idea is turned into a caricature and triumphantly destroyed.
Now imagine another scenario. The interlocutor clarifies: “So you believe that redistribution of funds could reduce social inequality and give children a chance at education?” This is already a steelman — the “strong version of the argument”: the opponent’s position is presented in its best possible form, so that the discussion is with its essence, not with a phantom.
The difference is simple and radical. Strawman is victory over a dummy. Steelman is recognition that reality is more complex than convenient labels. Strawman lives in the world of FlatMind — where form and effect are valued. Steelman is born in the space of DeepMind — where meaning and respect for complexity are valued.
In an age where headlines scream louder than facts, the choice between strawman and steelman is a choice between theater and dialogue, between phantoms and meanings.
2. Historical and Theoretical Context
2.1 The Origins of the Strawman
Antiquity
Misrepresenting an opponent’s position is older than newspapers and televised debates. Aristotle in On Sophistical Refutations already described how sophists deliberately simplified and reinterpreted the arguments of their opponents in order to appear victorious. Cicero used the same technique: attribute to the opponent an exaggerated or absurd claim, and then triumphantly demolish it.
The Metaphor
The English metaphor of the “man of straw” became established in the seventeenth century: the debate is not with the living position but with its harmless dummy — “it looks like a person but does not resist.” A popular version links it to the training dummies of soldiers; it is plausible but the ultimate etymology is uncertain (the exact date is unknown).
Medieval Disputations
In the university tradition of the Middle Ages, participants were required first to present their opponent’s position correctly, and only then to criticize it. Against this background the strawman was considered dishonest polemics. Nevertheless the trick survived the centuries: it provides the quick effect of a visible victory without confronting the strong version of the argument.
The Twentieth Century and Politics
The term fully entered mass rhetoric in the twentieth century. A striking episode is Richard Nixon’s “Checkers speech” of 23 September 1952: defending himself against accusations, he redefined the position of his critics and attacked its simplified versions — a classic strawman in politics.
Radical Forms
Modernity produced literal extremes. In the United States a so-called “strawman theory” emerged — a pseudo-legal idea of a “second,” paper person existing alongside the real one. This is no longer a metaphor but a separate entity — vivid evidence of the persistence of the strawman image.
2.2 The Introduction of the Steelman
Steelman is the practice of presenting an opponent’s position in its best, maximally strong version (sometimes even stronger than it was originally formulated by the author). The root of this approach is the principle of charity: interpret the other’s statements in the most reasonable and plausible form. In analytic philosophy it was articulated by Willard Quine and Donald Davidson; for Davidson it was connected to “radical interpretation” — the assumption that in order to understand, we attribute to the interlocutor generally rational and largely true beliefs.
In its modern form the tool was popularized by Daniel Dennett in his book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking (2013), where he systematized a practical protocol (known as “Rapoport’s rules”). A detailed step-by-step procedure is given in § 4.4 “How to Practice.”
The term steelman or steelmanning became widespread in the 2010s, especially in rationalist online communities (such as LessWrong), where it was explicitly opposed to the strawman. After the death of Daniel Dennett on 19 April 2024, interest in his “tools for thinking,” including charitable interpretation, received renewed attention.
In a broader perspective, steelman is not only a technique but also an ontological discipline: recognition that reality is richer than our models. We strengthen the position not out of “politeness” but because in this way we approach truth rather than caricature.
Steelman is a gesture of DeepMind: respect for the complexity of the world and recognition that meaning cannot be reduced to a parody.
3. Strawman: The Destroyer of Dialogue
3.1 The Mechanism
A weak version of the opponent’s position is taken. It is refuted. Victory is declared. The real argument remains untouched.
3.2 Examples
- Politics: “He proposes healthcare reform” becomes “He wants socialism and queues like in the Soviet Union.”
- Science: “Scientists say the climate is changing” becomes “They want to ban cars and airplanes.”
- Everyday life: “I think I will try vegetarianism” becomes “You want to force everyone to eat grass.”
3.3 Consequences
Strawman polarizes, undermines trust, and turns debates into circus. Psychology explains the attraction of the strawman as ego defense: it is easier to destroy a weak copy than to honestly engage with a strong idea.
3.4 How to Recognize and Avoid
The paraphrase test: formulate the opponent’s position in your own words and ask: “Did I understand you correctly?” If the answer is “yes” — continue. If the answer is “no” — you are slipping into strawman territory. Red flags: “He says that…” (without quotation), hyperboles (“always/never”), ad hominem instead of addressing the thesis.
4. Steelman: The Builder of Dialogue
4.1 The Mechanism
A voluntary effort to strengthen the opponent’s argument: remove obvious weaknesses, clarify formulations, point to the best data — and only then discuss.
4.2 Examples
- Science: Evolution versus creationism. Steelman: “Let us imagine that creationism is an attempt to explain the origin of meaning, not only mechanics.” Such an approach makes the debate more substantive.
- Business: Negotiations are more successful if you formulate your partner’s interests more clearly than he does himself.
- Family: “You are angry not because I was late, but because attention matters to you?” — steelman generates empathy and removes false interpretations.
4.3 Advantages
More trust, less noise, greater chance of finding a solution. Steelman trains critical thinking and makes theories more robust.
4.4 How to Practice (Rapoport’s Rules)
- Paraphrase the opponent’s position so that he himself says: “Yes, that is exactly what I meant.”
Example: “So you believe that raising taxes is a way to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor?” - Point out areas of agreement — even if they are small. This shows that you listen, not just prepare objections.
Example: “I agree that access to education is indeed important for equality of opportunity.” - Name what valuable insight you have learned. This is not a compliment but recognition of contribution.
Example: “You drew my attention to the fact that without funding, schools in poor districts decline.” - Only after this move on to criticism — gentle or harsh, but on the essence, not on the caricature.
Example: “But I think it is risky to shift the entire burden onto the super-wealthy: this could cause capital flight.”
Warning: the iron-man trap. There is a danger of “strengthening” the position into another, more intelligent and coherent one that the opponent himself does not actually hold. In that case you are arguing with an invented “super-opponent” rather than with the real person.
5. Comparison and Analysis
5.1 Key Differences
| Criterion | Strawman | Steelman |
|---|---|---|
| Attitude toward complexity | Reduces the complex to a scheme | Preserves complexity as manageable |
| Attitude toward meaning | Replaces meaning with form | Clarifies and preserves meaning |
| Work with position | Distorts | Strengthens |
| Effect | Destroys | Builds |
| Format | Trick | Skill |
| Value | For show | For truth |
Strawman is theater with cardboard scenery, where applause matters most. It lives in the world of forms, where it is easier to destroy a dummy.
Steelman is a workshop of meaning, where the result of work matters, where the living core of the idea must be reinforced.
When to use. Strawman — never, if you claim honesty. Steelman — by default; it should be consciously applied before entering into dispute.
Limitations. Steelman requires time and discipline. It is not always appropriate against propaganda and deliberate lies: first fact-checking is needed and refusal to “normalize” an obviously false frame.
6. Application in the Modern World
6.1 In Politics and the Media
Social networks are overflowing with strawmen — from memes to headlines. Serious journalism must demonstrate steelmanning of opposing sides rather than simplifications for clicks.
For editors and analysts this is exactly the transition from FlatMind to DeepMind: test and strengthen arguments before criticizing them.
FlatMind seeks simple forms and quick victories — this is the environment of the strawman. DeepMind accepts complexity and respects meaning — this is the space of the steelman. Therefore steelmanning becomes not only a rhetorical technique but also an ontological choice: to work with the living core of the idea, not with its dummy.
6.2 In Education and Business
Steelman is a basic skill of critical thinking and win-win negotiation. It should be taught as rhetorical hygiene.
6.3 In Personal Life
Family conflicts are significantly reduced if at least one participant applies the Steelman protocol before criticism.
6.4 The Future
Artificial intelligence assistants are already capable of performing steelmanning automatically: clarifying formulations, removing ambiguities, choosing the strongest version of the opponent’s position. This means that debate stops being a shouting contest and becomes a joint search for meaning.
In the future such systems may:
- check whether an argument is sliding into strawman and highlight it;
- offer a steelman version immediately on screen or in chat;
- train the user to see weak and strong versions of positions in real time.
If in the past debates were an “arena,” with artificial intelligence they may become a laboratory of understanding. And here the philosophical connection appears: from FlatMind (flat rhetoric, where form suppresses meaning) to DeepMind (respect for complexity and multilayeredness).
7. Conclusion
Strawman is simplification for the sake of victory. Steelman is complication for the sake of truth.
By choosing steelman, we choose a reality where meaning is more important than form, and dialogue is stronger than slogans.
Try steelman in your next dispute. It may change not only the discussion but also your relationships with people.
“If you want to understand, not to win — present your opponent’s argument in its best version” (in the spirit of Dennett).
Steelman is the choice to live not among phantoms but among meanings.
