What is the difference between playing devil’s advocate and steelmanning an argument? I’m interested in any and all attempts to draw a useful distinction, even if they’re only partial.
Attempts:
Devil’s advocate comes across as being deliberately disagreeable, while steelmanning comes across as being inclusive.
Devil’s advocate involves advancing a clearly-defined argument. Steelmanning is about clarifying an idea that gets a negative reaction due to factors like word choice or some other superficial factor.
Devil’s advocate is a political act and is only relevant in a conversation between two or more people. Steelmanning can be social, but it can also be done entirely in conversation with yourself.
Devil’s advocate is about winning an argument, and can be done even if you know exactly how the argument goes and know in advance that you’ll still disagree with it when you’re done making it. Steelmanning is about exploring an idea without preconceptions about where you’ll end up.
Devil’s advocate doesn’t necessarily mean advancing the strongest argument, only the one that’s most salient, hardest for your conversation partner to argue against, or most complex or interesting. Steelmanning is about searching for an argument that you genuinely find compelling, even if it’s as simple as admitting your own lack of expertise and the complexity of the issue.
Devil’s advocate can be a diversionary or stalling tactic, meant to delay or avoid an unwanted conclusion of a larger argument by focusing in on one of its minor components. Steelmanning is done for its own sake.
Devil’s advocate comes with a feeling of tension, attention-hogging, and opposition. Steelmanning comes with a feeling of calm, curiosity, and connection.
What is the difference between playing devil’s advocate and steelmanning an argument? I’m interested in any and all attempts to draw a useful distinction, even if they’re only partial.
Attempts:
Devil’s advocate comes across as being deliberately disagreeable, while steelmanning comes across as being inclusive.
Devil’s advocate involves advancing a clearly-defined argument. Steelmanning is about clarifying an idea that gets a negative reaction due to factors like word choice or some other superficial factor.
Devil’s advocate is a political act and is only relevant in a conversation between two or more people. Steelmanning can be social, but it can also be done entirely in conversation with yourself.
Devil’s advocate is about winning an argument, and can be done even if you know exactly how the argument goes and know in advance that you’ll still disagree with it when you’re done making it. Steelmanning is about exploring an idea without preconceptions about where you’ll end up.
Devil’s advocate doesn’t necessarily mean advancing the strongest argument, only the one that’s most salient, hardest for your conversation partner to argue against, or most complex or interesting. Steelmanning is about searching for an argument that you genuinely find compelling, even if it’s as simple as admitting your own lack of expertise and the complexity of the issue.
Devil’s advocate can be a diversionary or stalling tactic, meant to delay or avoid an unwanted conclusion of a larger argument by focusing in on one of its minor components. Steelmanning is done for its own sake.
Devil’s advocate comes with a feeling of tension, attention-hogging, and opposition. Steelmanning comes with a feeling of calm, curiosity, and connection.