Your steel man isn't ready until advocates say 'Yes…
When steel-manning an opposing position, verify adequacy by checking whether advocates of that position would say 'Yes, that is exactly what I mean' before proceeding to critique.
When This Fires
- Before critiquing any opposing position in writing, conversation, or internal reasoning
- During formal debates or disagreements when you're about to respond to someone's argument
- When writing analysis that compares competing positions
- When you feel confident you understand an opposing view — that's exactly when to check
Common Failure Mode
"Steel-manning" by adding charitable interpretation to a weak version of the argument rather than actually understanding the strongest version. "I think they're saying X, and even in the best case, X only means Y" — but the advocate would say "No, I'm saying Z, which you haven't considered." Genuine steel-manning requires understanding the position from the inside, not just dressing up your interpretation of it.
The Protocol
(1) Before critiquing an opposing position, write it out in your own words — as clearly and compellingly as you can. (2) Apply the Rapoport test: "Would an advocate of this position say 'Yes, that is exactly what I mean' — or better yet, 'Thanks, I wish I'd put it that way'?" (3) If you're unsure → you haven't understood the position well enough. Read more from actual advocates, not critics. Seek the strongest formulation, not the most common one. (4) If possible, actually show your representation to an advocate and ask if it's accurate. (5) Only after passing the Rapoport test → proceed to critique. Your critique now engages the real position, which means if it succeeds, it succeeds against the strongest version rather than a straw man.