Steel-man both sides of a contradiction before resolving — an informed advocate must recognize each

Why This Is a Rule

Resolving contradictions too quickly by weakening one side is the most common failure in belief management. You construct the best version of the side you favor and a straw-man version of the side you disfavor, then "resolve" the contradiction by noting that the strong version beats the weak version. This isn't resolution — it's motivated reasoning wearing an analytical costume.

Steel-manning — constructing each side's strongest possible version before attempting resolution — prevents this by requiring you to build each position to a standard that its most informed advocate would recognize and endorse. If an expert in Position A wouldn't recognize your representation of Position A, you've straw-manned it, and any resolution based on that representation is false.

The timing constraint (before resolution) is critical because the resolution process biases which side gets stronger construction. If you start resolving while constructing, you unconsciously weaken the side you want to reject. Building both sides first, independently, then attempting resolution, prevents this contamination.

When This Fires

• Before resolving any contradiction between beliefs you hold
• When two sources disagree and you need to evaluate both positions
• During any deliberation where you favor one side and want to ensure fairness
• Complements Log contradictions instead of resolving them — patterns emerge from accumulated tension (contradiction logging) when moving from logging to resolution

Common Failure Mode

Steel-manning your preferred side and straw-manning the other: writing a rich, nuanced version of what you believe and a thin, easily-defeated version of the opposition. The test: would the most informed, thoughtful advocate of the opposing position read your representation and say "yes, that captures my position fairly"? If not, you haven't steel-manned.

The Protocol

Before resolving a contradiction: (1) Construct Position A at its strongest — the version its best advocate would endorse. Include its best evidence, strongest arguments, and most nuanced formulation. (2) Construct Position B at its strongest — same standard. (3) Verify: would advocates of each position recognize and endorse your representation? If not, strengthen the weak representation. (4) Only after both sides pass the recognition test: attempt resolution. The resolution must defeat the strong version, not the weak one.