In conversation and in civic life, people misrepresent the stances of their opponents, whether by accident or on purpose. This is called a “straw-man”, because it’s like making a cheap imitation of the thing you want to knock down. It fails to move discourse forward because it doesn’t address what the other person is actually saying:
“I’m concerned that multi-family developments will increase congestion and affect the character of the neighborhood.” “No, you just hate poor people and don’t want them moving in near you!”
The opposite of this is the “steel-man”: the most charitable version of the other person’s argument–sometimes even better than their own:
“I understand that you’re concerned about maintaining a consistent look from house to house, and keeping traffic down. I assure you that our proposal takes this into real consideration, and I’ll explain how.”
When disagreeing with someone, building a rhetorical steel-man is incredibly useful. Not only does it make your argument stronger, but it deprives dissenters of the chance to say you misunderstood their argument. It’s one of the best ways to actually make progress in a heated conversation.
Plus, you can turn it around, too. If you feel like you’re being misrepresented, you can ask “in your own words, what am I saying?” This can give you a chance to clearly correct the other person’s straw-man, and push them to think of the argument in your terms.
Leave a comment