Restate the other side's position in its strongest form, to their satisfaction, before you answer it, so that you respond to the actual argument rather than to the caricature a persuader or your own side handed you.

How to do it

1. 1Before replying, write the other position as its best advocate would put it: the strongest evidence, the most reasonable motive, and the value it is protecting.
2. 2Check it with the other person when you can ("Is this a fair statement of your view?") and revise until they say yes. Rapoport's rules add: list what you agree with and what you learned before you say a word of criticism.
3. 3Compare the steelman with the version you were about to attack. If they differ, the version you were given (by a headline, a clip, or an ally) was the weak one, and the difference is the manipulation.
4. 4Only then refute, and aim at the steelman. A rebuttal that only works against the weak version is not a rebuttal.
5. 5When you cannot build a steelman at all, treat that as a sign you do not yet understand the position, not as a sign it has no merit.

When to use it

• •Political or moral disagreements where your information about the other side comes mainly from your own side.
• •Before sharing or replying to a post that quotes an opponent looking foolish.
• •Negotiations and workplace disputes where the other party's reasons were summarized to you by someone with a stake.
• •Any time you feel contempt while reading; contempt is the signal that you are holding a straw version.

Counters

Evidence and how strong it is

The practice descends from the principle of charity in philosophy and from the game theorist Anatol Rapoport's rules for criticism, which Dennett (2013) popularized. Its persuasive value has direct support: a meta-analysis of message sidedness found that two-sided messages which acknowledge and then refute the opposing view are more persuasive and more credible than one-sided messages, while two-sided messages that mention the other side without refuting it are less persuasive (Allen 1991). Work on conversational receptiveness shows that people who signal genuine engagement with opposing views (acknowledgment, hedging, positive framing) are judged more trustworthy and are more likely to be listened to in return (Yeomans et al. 2020), and that receptiveness is distinct from agreement (Minson, Chen & Tinsley 2020). Evidence strength: strong for two-sided refutational messages; moderate and recent for receptiveness; the discipline of checking the restatement with the other party is practitioner practice.

1. Dennett, D. C. (2013). Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. W. W. Norton
   The statement of Rapoport's rules for composing a successful critical commentary, which this countermeasure follows.
2. Allen, M. (1991). Meta-Analysis Comparing the Persuasiveness of One-Sided and Two-Sided Messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 390-404
   Finding that two-sided messages which refute the opposing view are more persuasive than one-sided messages, and that non-refutational two-sided messages are less.
3. Yeomans, M., Minson, J., Collins, H., Chen, F., & Gino, F. (2020). Conversational Receptiveness: Improving Engagement with Opposing Views. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 131-148
   Evidence that receptive language toward opposing views increases perceived trustworthiness and willingness to engage.
4. Minson, J. A., Chen, F. S., & Tinsley, C. H. (2020). Why Won't You Listen to Me? Measuring Receptiveness to Opposing Views. Management Science, 66(7)
   A validated measure of receptiveness that separates engaging with opposing views from agreeing with them.