Somebody needs to tell reddit bros that prefixing their 6000 word hash of biological essentialism with “I’m just steelmanning” does not make it convincing, coherent, or any less embarrassing.
@eaton They’re just what now?
@Meyerweb (Not sure if that was really a question or a snark, both are understandabl, but if the former, “steelmanning” is a catch phrase in internet rationalist communities used to describe the process of constructing the strongest argument you can for an idea that you disagree with — the opposite of “straw manning”. It’s the niche variation of “just to play devil’s advocate” and almost always indicates that the ideas that follow will be a sad mishmash of half-understood evopsych)
@WhiteCatTamer @Meyerweb Realistically it's just one of the many tics that have spread out on the internet from a relatively small group of internet forums — originally the idea was that one should always endeavor to engage with the strongest version of an idea you're trying to disprove rather than "straw manning" It, so they coined the "steel-manning" phrase as a shorthand.
That's a decent principle, and I applaud it, but like many things it's easy for it to turn into a rationalization for advocacy, and it’s also easy to flatter yourself with that idea that you're "steel manning" something when you're just misunderstanding it.
In the case of the discussion I came across, a dude was tossing around fistfuls of random factoids and studies to support his assertion that “80% of career outcome differences between men and women are due to hormone differences," and then kept trying to say he was “just steelmanning" the idea.
It was embarrassing for everyone. Just really, really cringe.
@WhiteCatTamer @Meyerweb ALWAYS lol