There's a debate concept called "steel-manning" that is an interesting idea. The opposite of the straw man fallacy, the steel man argument attempts to bolster the argument on the other side and then address that argument. I first noticed this concept in Tim Keller's book The Reason for God. I wouldn't doubt that I heard of it prior to that, but I don't recall anywhere else. It's been brought to the forefront of my thought more recently through an organization called Equal Rights Institute.
The reason for this concept is multi-facted, but a couple of the things that stand out to me are these:
1. It respects the dignity of your conversation partner.
I hesitate to use the phrase "debate opponent" because I think debate is an intellectual exercise to be saved for certain contexts, and in reality, few of us are ever in those contexts. Plus if we are to move forward (i.e. be progressive), we really need to be partnering and having conversations to understand rather than debates to argue and win. The steel man argument acknowledges that your partner has legitimate ideas that are worth understanding and addressing. When we straw man (or even when we answer an ill-articulated view without helping bolster it first), we fail to acknowledge that there are views contrary to ours that deserve consideration. By extension, we fail to acknowledge that the person we are talking to deserves consideration of their ideas and perspective.
2. It builds up a relationship.
I'm not sure if you've left a discussion feeling completely misunderstood, but I can tell you that I have. So has my husband. We have a long history of failing to hear each other, which we have both worked on intentionally, and I'm happy to report that we've had better disagreements in the last 6 months than we ever have in our 14-year relationship. Listening to someone and being willing to help them make their arguments stronger, even when you disagree moves from just respect for their human dignity to growing affection for one another. There's a good feeling in knowing you're heard. And there's an amazing feeling in knowing your partner feels heard. Even when it's not your spouse.
3. It sets up a more compelling "win."
In this sense, I mean "win" not so much as winning an argument or a debate because you scored the right kind of rebuttal points. I mean that part of being heard and part of hearing allows for everyone to walk away with a more robust understanding of an issue. This is already a win, imho. But even beyond this, if there's are topics that we are truly passionate about (for me it's pro-life, financial education, and constitutional law), then we want our conversation partner to have these positive experiences of feeling heard and appreciated because it will take away the hard work of plowing through the defensiveness that so easily creeps into discussions on sensitive and passionate topics. When those blockades are removed, people are more willing to acknowledge where they are wrong or at least where they haven't quite thought through their belief system.
No comments:
Post a Comment