OP has a theoretical point but let’s fleshman and not steelman it and then it seems to me, it is for most bits and purposeses simply too abstract. In most cases where we like to steelman an idea it is because we want to give the subject matter, the core idea itself the benefit of the doubt, maybe exactly—and for good reason—to separate it from its flawed proponents. This could theoretically be stupid in some cases but in most I think it’s exactly the careful conversational rule that can help prevent talking past each other or ignoring useful insights.
Say: Marx still to be taken seriously? Don’t hang the idea with it’s brutal historic fellows, or with it’s well-meaning but heart-not-brain-led current advocates’ rosy claims. Let’s see whether in absolute, his core tenets and claims may hold true under today’s or tomorrow’s unmovable parts of the technological and biological framework conditions. Let’s steelman it to see whether we can really fully or only mostly throw him out without regret
Yes, whether we’d actively support _a specific group_ of course would more depend on fleshwomaning but I don’t think that’s most often the point of discussion (even elsewhere than on LW), and where it is, I don’t think the “steelmanning” as concept tends to sneak in.
Maybe one could say much of OP’s intuitive traction therefore hinged on strawmanig a bit steelman’s case.
My point isn’t that the steelman has no purpose. They’re tools for different situations.
As you say, “Is Marx still to be taken seriously?” requires a steelman. If Marx passed muster then that might mean we’re supposed to build a new rationalist socialism that is as close as possible to that idealised and strengthened version of the argument.
But “should I support current Marxists as they exist” requires a fleshman.
and where it is, I don’t think the “steelmanning” as concept tends to sneak in.
Personally I’ve seen this happen often. Though often with the other end of the political spectrum. People engaging with the smart version of an idea even when the median supporter is very, very dumb and there’s no way anything that will be done in their name even comes close to that smart version anyway.
I agree that the proposed ‘fleshman’ view point is quite abstract and very different in its use from the other two. It seems to me that the main way to make it not as abstract is given in the conclusion: as a means to predict what a group might do or how the group might evolve.
People can believe and follow good causes (steelmanned version of an idea) for partially wrong reasons (fleashmanned version). Debating whether the actual idea is good or bad is one thing, looking at what actions the followers of that idea will take is another.
In a way, given a distribution of beliefs in a movement, the strawman is the lower bound (easy to attack), the steelman is the upper bound (great to use to prove wrong), but the fleshman reflects the actual distribution of opinions between those two, which helps not debate the idea, but understand real world cases.
It’s easy to take a belief held by real people and straw/steelman it into oblivion to an extent that no-one in the group actually recognises the idea anymore.
OP has a theoretical point but let’s fleshman and not steelman it and then it seems to me, it is for most bits and purposeses simply too abstract. In most cases where we like to steelman an idea it is because we want to give the subject matter, the core idea itself the benefit of the doubt, maybe exactly—and for good reason—to separate it from its flawed proponents. This could theoretically be stupid in some cases but in most I think it’s exactly the careful conversational rule that can help prevent talking past each other or ignoring useful insights.
Say: Marx still to be taken seriously? Don’t hang the idea with it’s brutal historic fellows, or with it’s well-meaning but heart-not-brain-led current advocates’ rosy claims. Let’s see whether in absolute, his core tenets and claims may hold true under today’s or tomorrow’s unmovable parts of the technological and biological framework conditions. Let’s steelman it to see whether we can really fully or only mostly throw him out without regret
Yes, whether we’d actively support _a specific group_ of course would more depend on fleshwomaning but I don’t think that’s most often the point of discussion (even elsewhere than on LW), and where it is, I don’t think the “steelmanning” as concept tends to sneak in.
Maybe one could say much of OP’s intuitive traction therefore hinged on strawmanig a bit steelman’s case.
My point isn’t that the steelman has no purpose. They’re tools for different situations.
As you say, “Is Marx still to be taken seriously?” requires a steelman. If Marx passed muster then that might mean we’re supposed to build a new rationalist socialism that is as close as possible to that idealised and strengthened version of the argument.
But “should I support current Marxists as they exist” requires a fleshman.
Personally I’ve seen this happen often. Though often with the other end of the political spectrum. People engaging with the smart version of an idea even when the median supporter is very, very dumb and there’s no way anything that will be done in their name even comes close to that smart version anyway.
I agree that the proposed ‘fleshman’ view point is quite abstract and very different in its use from the other two. It seems to me that the main way to make it not as abstract is given in the conclusion: as a means to predict what a group might do or how the group might evolve.
People can believe and follow good causes (steelmanned version of an idea) for partially wrong reasons (fleashmanned version). Debating whether the actual idea is good or bad is one thing, looking at what actions the followers of that idea will take is another.
In a way, given a distribution of beliefs in a movement, the strawman is the lower bound (easy to attack), the steelman is the upper bound (great to use to prove wrong), but the fleshman reflects the actual distribution of opinions between those two, which helps not debate the idea, but understand real world cases.
It’s easy to take a belief held by real people and straw/steelman it into oblivion to an extent that no-one in the group actually recognises the idea anymore.