So there’s steelmanning, where you construct a view that isn’t your interlocutor’s but is, according to you, more true / coherent / believable than your interlocutor’s. Then there’s the Ideological Turing Test, where you restate your interlocutor’s view in such a way that ze fully endorses your restatement.
Another dimension is how clear things are to the audience. A further criterion for restating your interlocutor’s view is the extent to which your restatement makes it feasible / easy for your audience to (accurately) judge that view. You could pass an ITT without especially hitting this bar. Your interlocutor’s view may have an upstream crux that ze doesn’t especially feel has to be brought out (so, not necessary for the ITT), but which is the most cruxy element for most of the audience. You can pass the ITT while emphasizing that crux or while not emphasizing that crux; from your interlocutor’s point of view, the crux is not necessarily that central, but is agreeable if stated.
A proposed term for this bar of exposition / restatement: ostentiate / ostentiation. Other terms:
So there’s steelmanning, where you construct a view that isn’t your interlocutor’s but is, according to you, more true / coherent / believable than your interlocutor’s.
[nitpick] while also being close to your interlocutor’s (perhaps so that your interlocutor’s view could be the steelmanned view with added noise / passed through Chinese whispers / degenerated).
Ostentiation:
So there’s steelmanning, where you construct a view that isn’t your interlocutor’s but is, according to you, more true / coherent / believable than your interlocutor’s. Then there’s the Ideological Turing Test, where you restate your interlocutor’s view in such a way that ze fully endorses your restatement.
Another dimension is how clear things are to the audience. A further criterion for restating your interlocutor’s view is the extent to which your restatement makes it feasible / easy for your audience to (accurately) judge that view. You could pass an ITT without especially hitting this bar. Your interlocutor’s view may have an upstream crux that ze doesn’t especially feel has to be brought out (so, not necessary for the ITT), but which is the most cruxy element for most of the audience. You can pass the ITT while emphasizing that crux or while not emphasizing that crux; from your interlocutor’s point of view, the crux is not necessarily that central, but is agreeable if stated.
A proposed term for this bar of exposition / restatement: ostentiate / ostentiation. Other terms:
ekthesize / exthesize; phosphanize, epiphotize; elogize; anaply / anaplain; anaptychize / exptychize / eptychize;
adluminate, superluminate; ostentiate, superostentiate;
belight, beshine, enbeacon.
[nitpick] while also being close to your interlocutor’s (perhaps so that your interlocutor’s view could be the steelmanned view with added noise / passed through Chinese whispers / degenerated).
Exoclarification? Alloclarification? Democlarification (dēmos—“people”)?
(I think I’ll go with “alloprosphanize” for now… not catchy but ok. https://tsvibt.github.io/theory/pages/bl_25_10_08_12_27_48_493434.html )
These are good ideas, thanks!