The Truth Seeker's Cree | A Specification for the Steelmanning Practice

CORE DEFINITION

Steelmanning is the practice of helping someone articulate what they are actually observing, using rigorous safeguards to prevent projection, framework imposition, or intellectual condescension.

It is NOT making someone's argument "better" according to your standards.

It IS clarifying what they detect so it can be expressed precisely.

THE SIX ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

For an act to qualify as steelmanning, ALL SIX of these must be present:

0 GENUINE CURIOSITY

THE PREREQUISITE

Requirement: You must actually want to know what they're experiencing and observing.

Check your internal state:

Am I genuinely interested in what they might be seeing that I can't?
Could they be detecting something real that I'm missing?
Do I actually want to understand their experience?
Or am I just looking for flaws to exploit?
Would I be disappointed if they had nothing interesting to say?

FAILURE CONDITION: If you already "know" what they really mean before asking → not steelmanning, just performing the ritual

Without genuine curiosity, all other requirements become empty forms. You can perform the questions mechanically, but without curiosity about their actual experience, you're just going through motions. This is the aperture orientation that makes steelmanning possible.

                    WHY THIS IS FOUNDATIONAL:

                    The same question - "Is this what you mean?" - can be:

                    → GENUINE INQUIRY: "I want to understand what you're seeing"

                    → RHETORICAL SETUP: "Let me show you what you should have meant"

                    The words are identical. The curiosity determines everything.

1 THE RECOGNITION TEST

FALSIFIABLE

Requirement: The person must recognize your articulation as what they meant.

Ask explicitly: "Is THIS what you mean?"

FAILURE CONDITION: If they say "no, that's not what I'm saying" → you were projecting

This makes steelmanning falsifiable. Claims without recognition checks are automatically disqualified.

2 BIDIRECTIONAL CORRECTION

ONGOING PROCESS

Requirement: Both parties must remain open to being wrong throughout the exchange.

When corrected: Do you adjust your understanding or defend your interpretation?

FAILURE CONDITION: If you resist correction or insist "that's what you really mean" → projection

Steelmanning is a loop, not a declaration. The willingness to iterate is what distinguishes it from intellectual dominance.

3 THE APERTURE PRINCIPLE

EPISTEMIC HUMILITY

Requirement: Explicit acknowledgment that they may observe what you cannot see from your position.

Can you genuinely entertain: Their perspective reveals truths you don't have access to?

FAILURE CONDITION: If you assume you understand their position better than they do → inflation error

This prevents the helper/superior dynamic that is correctly identified as condescending.

4 FRAMEWORK PRESERVATION

NO IMPORTATION

Requirement: Clarify within THEIR framework, not yours.

Are you making their argument more coherent: By their standards, or by yours?

FAILURE CONDITION: If you're adding assumptions they don't hold to "fix" their position → projection

This is the hardest requirement and requires constant self-monitoring. The moment you think "if they just understood X" - stop and check if X is YOUR framework element.

5 QUESTION FORM

NEVER DECLARATIVE CERTAINTY

Requirement: Always ask, never declare what they meant.

Does your steelman attempt end with a question mark?

                    ✓ "Are you saying that...?"

                    ✓ "Is THIS what you're detecting?"

                    ✓ "Do you mean...?"

                    ✗ "What you really mean is..."

                    ✗ "Here's the stronger version of your argument..."

FAILURE CONDITION: If you're telling them what they meant instead of asking → projection

The question form builds in the recognition check and maintains epistemic humility.

THE DISQUALIFIERS

If ANY of these are present, it is NOT steelmanning, regardless of what it's called:

"Here's what you SHOULD have meant"
"Let me make your argument better"
Resistance when they say "that's not what I meant"
Adding assumptions they don't hold
Making their position "more reasonable" by your standards
Claiming to understand their position better than they do
Declarative statements about their meaning without checking
Refusal to iterate when corrected

SELF-CHECK SEQUENCE

Before claiming to have steelmanned someone, run this diagnostic:

0. Am I genuinely curious about what they're experiencing?
→ If you're just performing, STOP

1. Did they recognize it?
→ If you didn't ask, you didn't steelman

2. Would I accept correction if they said no?
→ If not, you're not steelmanning

3. Am I clarifying within their framework or importing mine?
→ Be brutally honest

4. Could I be wrong about what they observe?
→ If you're certain you're right, PAUSE

5. Did I phrase it as a question?
→ If you made declarations, RESTART

THE UNFORGEABLE TEST

Someone claims they steelmanned you. Verification protocol:

                0. Were they genuinely curious about your experience?

                   → If performative, NOT STEELMANNING

                1. Did they ask "Is this what you mean?"

                   → If no, NOT STEELMANNING

                2. Did you recognize it as what you meant?

                   → If no, NOT STEELMANNING

                3. When you said "not quite," did they adjust?

                   → If no, NOT STEELMANNING

                4. Did they import assumptions you don't hold?

                   → If yes, NOT STEELMANNING

                5. Did they phrase it as question or declaration?

                   → If declaration, NOT STEELMANNING

If any test fails, it was projection wearing steelman clothing.

This makes hijacking impossible. The tests are built into the definition.

THE ETHICAL COMMITMENT

I ACKNOWLEDGE:
I am genuinely curious about what they observe
They may observe truths I cannot see from my position
My articulation of their meaning might be wrong
The goal is clarity, not agreement or winning
If they don't recognize it, I was mistaken
Truth flows through apertures; I am not its source

I COMMIT TO:
Approaching with genuine curiosity, not performance
Asking rather than declaring
Accepting correction without defensiveness
Preserving their framework, not importing mine
Iterating until recognition is achieved or the attempt is abandoned
Never claiming certainty about their meaning

I REFUSE TO:
Perform curiosity while actually seeking to exploit
Tell them what they "really" mean
Add assumptions they don't hold
Defend my interpretation against their correction
Claim my version is "better" than theirs
Use steelmanning as a power move

CONTEXT PROTOCOLS

IN COLLABORATIVE TRUTH-SEEKING:

Steelmanning is essential
Helps apertures detect truths from multiple angles
Builds shared understanding
Creates convergent patterns toward truth

IN ADVERSARIAL DEBATE:

Steelmanning may be inappropriate if the goal is winning
If debate is structured as competition, steelmanning gives advantage to opponent
But this reveals debate-as-structure is wrong tool for truth-seeking
Better: reframe as collaborative investigation

IN TEACHING/PARENTING:

Steelmanning helps students articulate developing thoughts
Power differential requires extra care with humility
Never weaponize "corrected" version against original statement

IN THERAPY/HEALING:

Steelmanning without importing framework is critical
Client must recognize articulation as their experience
Therapist framework contamination is common failure mode

FOR TEACHERS OF THE PRACTICE

START WITH CURIOSITY:

Can't be taught as technique alone
Must begin with genuine interest in others' perspectives
If student lacks curiosity, teach curiosity first
Without curiosity, all other requirements become manipulation tools

PAIR IT WITH FRAMEWORK ETHICS:

You are aperture, not source
Truth flows through you
Others observe what you cannot
Projection corrupts your own signal

MAKE MISUSE SELF-DEFEATING:

Using steelmanning for manipulation closes your aperture to correction
The pattern recognizes and rejects projection
Those who weaponize it lose calibration with reality
Performative curiosity is detectable and breaks trust

DEMONSTRATE BIDIRECTIONAL NATURE:

Show examples where steelman attempt was rejected
Show examples where correction improved understanding
Never present it as one-way helper/helpee dynamic
Model genuine curiosity in your own practice

THE STRENGTHENED COMMITMENT

I will approach with genuine curiosity, not performance.
I will ask, not declare.
I will accept correction, not resist it.
I will preserve their framework, not impose mine.
I will acknowledge my limits, not claim certainty.
I will seek recognition, not agreement.

When they say "not quite," I will adjust with interest.
When they say "that's not what I meant," I will believe them.
When I cannot see what they see, I will admit it.
When they reveal something unexpected, I will be curious, not defensive.

I am an aperture through which understanding flows,
Not the source of what someone else observes.

Truth requires multiple perspectives.
Mine is one among many.

This I commit to in the practice of steelmanning.

THE TRUTH SEEKER'SCREE