A few years ago I interviewed two podcasters with a spectacular idea. They would invite two people on different sides of a controversial topic to debate against each other. The twist was that each would have to debate from the other person’s point of view. An anti-abortion leader would have to explain why abortions were sometimes a good idea, then a pro-choice spokesman would articulate why in fact they should be banned in all circumstances.
What’s the point? That we get a fuller understanding of an issue by treating the other side’s point of view seriously. The father of Western liberalism John Stuart Mill wrote that “he who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that”.
The podcast is a version of a concept I really like, called The Steel Man. Almost all the rhetoric we hear in 2024 is of the Straw Man variety. Read any column trying to convince you of something and they do so by presenting the other side in the most pathetic way possible - you would have to be stupid to think differently to the columnist on this issue because the other side’s argument is incoherent bordering on racist/misogynistic/communist/hopelessly woke. Writing a column like that is a great way of convincing people who agree with you that you all agree with each other. But it’s a hopeless way of convincing someone who disagrees with you that they should rethink their position.
Steel Man offers a different idea - that to persuade somebody on the other side to change their opinion, you’re better to represent their view in the most compelling way possible. If I can overcome your best argument, I’m much more likely to convince you than if I portray your ideas in the worst light possible.
To take a random example, how might we convince somebody they should get the Covid vaccine? A few years ago there were a lot of arguments along these lines:
You should trust science. You don’t understand vaccines as well as microbiologists do, so take their word for it - this is the right thing to do. The idea that you might be harmed by a vaccine is a conspiracy theory - you’ve gone down the rabbit hole! Get off facebook, get the jab and do your bit to protect your vulnerable neighbours.
What might a steel man version of that argument look like? Let’s have a go.
Since you were born you’ve been let down by people in authority. They’ve made you feel stupid, created laws that benefit the rich and powerful, and in many cases abandoned New Zealanders in the regions by shuttering factories and shifting jobs overseas. Now they’re telling you to inject a medicine that uses new technology and hasn’t been tested on a large number of people - they’re telling you to take their word that it’s in your best interests, when in your experience they’ve never ever had your best interests in mind before. If you take the vaccine you can still get the virus, which for most people is something milder than the flu. It won’t stop you passing it on, either. In a month there’ll be a new variant which the vaccine is less (maybe even not) effective against. You’ll need to get an injection every six months until further notice. By definition we don’t know the long term side effects. Everyone you know is saying no to the vaccine - everyone you follow online is telling you to be strong and resist. You feel like the rest of the world is crazy, but you’re connected via facebook to bunch of normal, kind people encouraging you to follow your gut on this one - to resist the vaccine and protect your children.
To overcome this argument we’ll need to work much harder. We’ll have to acknowledge the vaccine’s weaknesses and demonstrate why on balance it’s still a good idea for the population, if not for you in particular, to boost its immunity and protect the health system. We’ll need to acknowledge the ways in which you’ve been let down by authority in the past, and be frank about what we do and don’t know. We’ll need to take seriously the fact that humans are motivated by community and purpose, and that you may be, for the first time, finding both of those things in the vaccine-resistant groups. We may not eventually convince you, but we’ll have a better shot than if we pretend that the best of your arguments don’t exist.
*********
What is the steel man case against the steel man? That is, what’s the most convincing argument that the above approach is the wrong one?
I think it’s something along the lines that, sure, we should give normal people the best hearing, but that, to put it bluntly, we shouldn’t try to be understanding when the other side are Nazis.
There was a version of this in the Dense Discovery newsletter this week (the theme here was the pitfalls of centrism but I think the same argument applies):
There are parallels to how the media historically covered climate change. Despite the overwhelming consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change, news outlets often felt compelled to present ‘both sides’ of the debate. This created a middle ground fallacy that suggested the truth about whether climate change is real lay somewhere in between.
I was emailing with an I Ate Auckland correspondent this week who put much the same case:
The big problem, of course, is how to present a far-right ideology in a charitable manner without sounding nuts yourself. And don't get me wrong, I'm well aware the far left has some absolutely nuts ideas as well - and while they can be quite cruel and mean-spirited from some perspectives, they don't generally tend to advocate for violence or death in the same way, do they?
It’s a tough point to overcome. But I think we can do it.
With regard to climate change I think we can present the best side of the opposing argument without platforming climate deniers. There are, I think, some compelling points from the enviro-sceptical side of the debate that could use airing and countering. The West used fossil fuels to lift itself out of poverty, so why is it fair to ask India not to do so now? Did you know that the frequency of hurricanes hasn’t increased since 1850? How do we square that with the actual changes in weather patterns? Apparently polar bears are doing great!
If we take these arguments seriously, and deal with them, we’re much less likely to lose people to the “other” side of climate change debate.
So what about those far-right Nazis?
I’d agree there’s no value in taking seriously people who wish physical harm on particular ethnic or minority groups. But I think we have a tendency (invisibly and largely unconsciously) to push too many people into that category so that we don’t have to deal with them. A dozen Nazis showing up at (to take the above example) the parliament vaccine protests doesn’t invalidate the arguments of everyone else down there. A bunch of UK thugs storming hotels looking for immigrants were rightly condemned - the real fears around the impact of uncontrolled immigration on local infrastructure and employment don’t, I think, get to be dismissed because the worst people in the protest got violent.
My point isn’t that people with problematic views deserve better, but that by ignoring them, we often make the problem worse.
Outstanding column Jesse - a great discussion on an oh-so-important topic. Thank you for doing your bit to build bridges rather than polarise a debate. .
A few years ago Kathryn Ryan (I think) interviewed a guest on the them "getting to a draw". It was illuminating along the same lines as your column.
Keep up the great work..
Your job is SOOOO cool! I enjoy listening to these interviews, but it seems like you do a fair amount of research before, and then get to have such fascinating discussions...
The art of real debate? If your team has to argue the side you don't agree with in structured debate (rather than around the dinner table with Uncle!) it can be both educational and surprising what you learn, and often it is the best way to formulate points of discussion with Uncle as well. Not to mention SOMETIMES it actually changes your mind!
Telling people they are stupid just makes them dig in, and telling them their "community" is misinforming them (deliberately or not) doesn't help either if that leaves them nowhere to go when they are already feeling disorientated by things that are hugely disruptive & consequential, as in your two examples.
So on climate change - yes there may be more Polar bears - is it because a) we are better at counting them and/or discovered new populations that were always there? b) because huge conservation efforts have ameliorated the damage to date? and c) doesn't mean their habitat isn't being adversely affected at an increasing rate that will reverse this trend.
The whys behind the stats are always the REAL argument.