I think that this is a good example of the problems with the term steelmanning. What is the point of steelmanning? Different people have different meanings, derived from different purposes. You ask if you are “steelmanning them well enough,” but I cannot answer that without knowing what you mean and are trying to accomplish.
I see three usages. One is in the middle of a debate. This was the original usage, to “attack a steel man” rather than to “attack a straw man.” Fix small holes in your opponent’s position rather than making him waste time fixing them himself. More generally, don’t reiterate common patterns of back-and-forth; anticipate the response and address it.
A second usage is to ascribe intellectual credit. If someone influenced you, it is good to acknowledge your debts, but take credit for your own ideas. Call it your own “argument” or “analysis,” not a steel man of someone else. Failing to do so is an ancient practice and I think that it has always been bad for clarity, such as when stoics attributed all their ideas to Zeno. But the new form has additional problems; the traditional practice was a form of tribute to the master, while the idea of the “steel man” of an opponent reverses the valence. Also, putting words in people’s mouths is offensive. (Of course, any debate is a claim of superiority over the enemy, but in practice the term and practice of the steel man is more offensive.)
A third usage is to describe a person or a debate. You can’t perfectly represent anything and you should always rephrase things to make sure you mean something, rather than just parrot words. You should patch up small holes in this process. But you shouldn’t make radical changes. It is sensible to ask what general principle might the person be following to generate these arguments, but you are probably wrong, so you shouldn’t attribute it. Ask your audience to debate that new point, not whether you steelmanned the old point. Ask your audience if you missed other arguments. You seem to say (in the comments) that you consciously noticed that Klein made two arguments and that you completely discarded one as lousy. Surely Klein would not accept this description of himself. If your goal is to recount the debate, you should mention the other argument, if only to dismiss it.
One problem with the second and third is that they blend together. I can’t tell which you mean to do, and that affects my judgement of how well you did it. I don’t like the term steel man for either one, but that confusion is additional problem.
I think that this is a good example of the problems with the term steelmanning. What is the point of steelmanning? Different people have different meanings, derived from different purposes. You ask if you are “steelmanning them well enough,” but I cannot answer that without knowing what you mean and are trying to accomplish.
I see three usages. One is in the middle of a debate. This was the original usage, to “attack a steel man” rather than to “attack a straw man.” Fix small holes in your opponent’s position rather than making him waste time fixing them himself. More generally, don’t reiterate common patterns of back-and-forth; anticipate the response and address it.
A second usage is to ascribe intellectual credit. If someone influenced you, it is good to acknowledge your debts, but take credit for your own ideas. Call it your own “argument” or “analysis,” not a steel man of someone else. Failing to do so is an ancient practice and I think that it has always been bad for clarity, such as when stoics attributed all their ideas to Zeno. But the new form has additional problems; the traditional practice was a form of tribute to the master, while the idea of the “steel man” of an opponent reverses the valence. Also, putting words in people’s mouths is offensive. (Of course, any debate is a claim of superiority over the enemy, but in practice the term and practice of the steel man is more offensive.)
A third usage is to describe a person or a debate. You can’t perfectly represent anything and you should always rephrase things to make sure you mean something, rather than just parrot words. You should patch up small holes in this process. But you shouldn’t make radical changes. It is sensible to ask what general principle might the person be following to generate these arguments, but you are probably wrong, so you shouldn’t attribute it. Ask your audience to debate that new point, not whether you steelmanned the old point. Ask your audience if you missed other arguments. You seem to say (in the comments) that you consciously noticed that Klein made two arguments and that you completely discarded one as lousy. Surely Klein would not accept this description of himself. If your goal is to recount the debate, you should mention the other argument, if only to dismiss it.
One problem with the second and third is that they blend together. I can’t tell which you mean to do, and that affects my judgement of how well you did it. I don’t like the term steel man for either one, but that confusion is additional problem.