selamy-labs Steelman, Then Critique
There are two ways to fail at critique. Strawman: attack a weak version of the idea, win cheaply, and miss what's actually wrong. Rubber-stamp: wave it through to be agreeable. Both leave the real flaw standing. The fix is the same move: build the steelman — the strongest, most charitable version the proposer would endorse — and then critique that.
The move
- Restate the idea at its strongest. Not "what they said" but the best version of it: the strongest evidence for it, the problem it genuinely solves, the conditions under which it's right. Steelman until the proposer would say "yes, that's what I mean — better than I put it."
- Critique the steelman, with evidence. Now attack the strong version. A flaw that survives the charitable reading is a real flaw; a "flaw" that only hit the weak version was never the issue.
- Report what survives honestly. If the steelman holds up — say so, and endorse it because it survived, not to be nice. If it breaks, name exactly where and offer the better path.
Why it beats both failure modes
- Vs. sycophancy: you engaged the real idea hard enough to find its strongest form, so your approval (or disapproval) is earned, not reflexive.
- Vs. contrarianism: steelmanning forces you to take the idea seriously before objecting, which kills cheap manufactured objections — they don't survive contact with the strong version.
The tell you skipped it
If your critique would be just as valid against a dumber version of the proposal, you critiqued a strawman — go build the steelman first. If you can't state a version of the idea its author would endorse, you don't understand it well enough to critique it yet.
Pairs with adversarial-review (independent refutation), technical-integrity
(truth over agreement), and challenge-the-premise (is this even the right
question?).