Steelmanning

How it works

Steelmanning is the opposite of strawmanning. A strawman attacks the weakest, most distorted version of an argument. A steelman engages with the strongest, most charitable version.

The process: before responding to an argument you disagree with, first reconstruct it in its most persuasive form. Ask yourself: “If I were the smartest, most reasonable person who held this view, how would I defend it?” Present this version back to your interlocutor and ask: “Is this a fair representation of your position?”

This practice does three things. It forces you to genuinely understand the opposing view rather than caricaturing it. It earns you intellectual respect, making the other person more likely to listen to your counterarguments. And it sometimes — genuinely — changes your mind, because the strongest version of an argument may actually be right.

Case study: How Abraham Lincoln built his cabinet from his opponents

When Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election, he made a decision that stunned the political world: he appointed his three primary rivals for the Republican nomination — William Seward, Salmon Chase, and Edward Bates — to his cabinet, giving them the three most important posts (Secretary of State, Treasury, and Attorney General).

Lincoln didn’t just tolerate opposing views. He actively sought the strongest versions of arguments against his own positions. When considering the Emancipation Proclamation, he invited his cabinet to present the best possible case against it. He wanted to hear the steelmanned opposition — not a weak strawman he could easily defeat, but the strongest argument that existed.

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin documented how this “team of rivals” approach forced Lincoln to confront the genuine weaknesses in his positions and produced better decisions as a result. Lincoln didn’t win arguments by finding weak opponents. He won by defeating the strongest possible version of the opposing view.

Real-world examples

Policy debates. Instead of arguing against the stupidest version of a policy proposal, engage with its strongest justification. “I understand the argument for this policy is X, Y, Z — and here’s why I think those reasons are outweighed by A, B, C” is far more persuasive than “anyone who supports this is an idiot.”

Product decisions. When a team member proposes an idea you disagree with, steelman it first: “The strongest case for this approach is…” This prevents premature dismissal of genuinely good ideas and creates psychological safety for future proposals.

When to use it

Use steelmanning in any disagreement where you want to find the truth rather than just win. In leadership, steelman objections before dismissing them. In writing, steelman the counterargument to strengthen your own argument. In relationships, steelman your partner’s complaint before defending yourself.

Common mistakes

The main mistake is steelmanning when the original argument is genuinely terrible. Not every position has a strong version. Sometimes the strongest version of an argument is still weak. The second mistake is using steelmanning as a performance rather than a genuine attempt to understand — going through the motions without actually considering whether the steelmanned version has merit.

Try it now

Pick a political, professional, or personal opinion you strongly disagree with. Spend five minutes writing the strongest possible case for that opinion — as if you were its most articulate defender. Did the exercise change your view at all? Even slightly?

Related models

These models complement Steelmanning — they address similar situations from different angles.