[duskdozer]

Not a guarantee of course, but I think if you can't steelman your opponents, have never gone into something with some hypothesis or bias and ultimately proved it wrong/insufficiently supported and accepted that, or wouldn't be willing to specify what evidence would be sufficient for you to change your mind (however unlikely you believe that to be), you're more likely to be Homer.

[antisthenes]

> Not a guarantee of course, but I think if you can't steelman your opponents

There's no point in steelmanning opponents who would not do the same to you. There isn't enough time in the universe to argue against all of them and all of their gaslighting and logical fallacies.

I think willing to admit one is wrong and maybe thinking for an extra second before opening their mouth to give another opinion would get people 90% towards being right and away from being Homer.

[duskdozer]

I don't mean you should spend endless amounts of time arguing with people. Lots will just try to waste your time and exhaust you. It's more a hypothetical for when you're thinking about your beliefs/position on your own time.

[akramachamarei]

> There's no point in steelmanning opponents […] There isn't enough time […] to argue against […] gaslighting and logical fallacies.

I think there's a separation in how people are using "steelman". A steelman argument by definition contains no (or a minimal amount of) gaslighting and fallacies. As for the worth of the exercise, it's about personal knowledge seeking. If you're totally confident in your beliefs, than certainly, steelmanning will hold little value.