쉐도잉 연습: Why you should "steel man" other people - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

연습 모드 선택

각 모드는 전체 화면 연습실로 열립니다.

73 문장

문장이 너무 짧거나 길면 Edit를 눌러 조정하세요.

A straw man is when you simplify or exaggerate somebody's position to make it an easier target.

It's a target that you can then bat down with adversarial ease.

For example, if an atheist says that Christianity is just worshipping some bearded man in the sky, that is a straw man,

because I've yet to meet a Christian who would accept that as a representation of their religion.

Of course, if a Christian then says

that an atheist is somebody who does not believe in anything at all

or that life has no meaning or that we can just do anything that is also quite likely a straw man.

The problem with a straw man argument is

that not only does it not address somebody's actual points but it poisons the entire debate.

It's a kind of bad faith argument that sees conversations as a brawl

and that truth is just one weapon in the arsenal in a war to win at all costs.

But there is a better way.

The opposite of a straw man is a steel man.

This is where you not only try to represent somebody's position as faithfully as you can and with respect, but you do so in the best possible light.

You spend a great deal of attention double-checking that what you think somebody's position is, is what that person is actually trying to argue.

A great example of this in action, I think, is Alex O'Connor.

I've yet to see a video of his where he willfully

misrepresent an argument just to make it an easier position to attack.

In fact, he'll often spend a great deal of time trying to reach a mutual understanding of the position

and only then will he criticise it and only then will he do so politely.

In my experience, if you take the time to actually inquire about what somebody actually believes, you'll find a far greater nuance and often far greater agreement than you might have thought at the start.

For example, only the most dastardly and venal of politicians are actually doing it for themselves.

I think that most politicians want to make society and the world at least a bit better.

It's just that the right and the left-wing arguments about how to do that will differ.

It's long been pointed out that calling your political opponents the enemy

or evil or idiotic without saying what that means is not only childish, but it's bad for philosophy, it's bad for democracy, and it's bad for politics.

In his 2013 book, Intuition, Pumps, and Other Tools, the philosopher Daniel Dennett laid out four rules, one of which sounds remarkably like a steel man.

These are rules for a good debate, and this is what they are.

First and most important is that you should attempt to express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says things like,

well, I wish I had put it like that as well.

For example, if somebody says to you that social media is inherently evil, you can say to them, well, do you mean that there is some content that is addictive

and dangerous and that young people especially shouldn't be expected to resist that addiction as much as adults?

Second, you should list all of the ways that you and your opponent agree on things.

You might say that, yes, okay, we both agree that there are aspects of social media that are dangerous, that we should have greater regulation and that the conversation should focus mostly on young people.

Third, you might recognize the ways in which your partner has taught you something new.

For example, you might say, oh, I didn't know that people today are on average on social media two hours a day.

Fourth and finally, only then after all of this can you go on to then try and criticize or reject that position.

You might say, I don't actually think that we should ban all social media.

In Plato's dialogues, you'll often see Socrates lining up his opponents with a steel man argument.

A huge part of the dialogue involves Socrates clarifying, laying out and even strengthening the other person's position.

For example, in the Gorgias, Socrates pauses and reframes Callicles' position about strength and domination, often making it sound more coherent than Callicles himself.

In Republic, when his opponent argues that justice is nothing more than the interests of the strongest, Socrates doesn't caricature it or simplify the idea.

Instead, he builds it up into the best version of itself, before then showing why it might be wrong.

Debates today are often about trying to grab the six o'clock headlines or ride the viral wave with an entertaining gotcha moment.

But the Socratic method was about understanding fully before disagreeing deeply because that's the spirit of the steel man.

Of course, Plato's dialogues are not podcast transcripts.

They are fictionalised accounts of Plato's version of Socrates debating Plato's version of his opponents.

But the fact that Plato was so willing to present rival opinions in such a strong and positive light, before then pulling them apart,

reveals just how far we have drifted in what we call a good discussion.

And in fact, this is why Plato was so suspicious about debates.

He called debates stupid and dangerous.

Because according to Plato, debates are very rarely about truth or philosophy.

They are about ego and pride and winning at all costs.

Plato often criticises the sophists who, amongst other things, were professional debaters and they would teach other members of the public how they could win at debates.

They taught people certain tricks and tactics to speak well, how to argue well and how to make the opponent look a bit silly.

Plato hated these kind of debates

because it reduced philosophy to a competition where both parties would try to outwit

and outspeak each other in a kind of game.

The Greeks called it heuristic and the heuristic debater would appeal to the audience.

They would mock their opponents.

They would resort to any fallacious argument they could so long as it meant they could win.

Plato thought that these debates were not just some harmless fun

because the big problem with heuristic is that those who are watching the debate confuse the winner with the truth.

But just because somebody has won a debate through wit and professional tactics doesn't necessarily mean that they are right.

For Plato, truth and philosophy is a much longer collaborative and dialectic process.

In many ways, the problem of strawmanning and ridiculing invented beliefs will not go away.

Point scoring and cheering to the crowd were present in ancient Greece

and they are here in modern primetime TV debates as well.

But the steel man is something

that we can try to bring back into everyday conversations with the people we interact with weekly.

Because what Plato and Dennett both knew is that if you are to actually grow in your beliefs, you have to see debate as a constructive act and with good intentions.

Debates are not adversarial opportunities to make your opponent look like an idiot.

They are opportunities to become better and to grow.

앱 다운로드

유창하게 말하는 데 필요한 모든 것

AI 발음 평가문장마다 점수 확인

IPA 발음 연습모든 소리 마스터

단어 학습나만의 단어장 만들기

단어 게임놀면서 외우기

QR 스캔

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

같은 채널

118

FOR YOU

이 레슨의 어휘와 말하기 포인트

이 영상에는 섀도잉할 문장 73개와 단어 1211개가 있습니다. 말하는 구간의 길이는 6:27입니다. 화자는 분당 약 188단어로 빠르게 말하므로 연음과 약하게 발음되는 소리가 많습니다. 단어의 82%가 영어에서 가장 많이 쓰이는 3,000단어에 속합니다. 나머지는 연습 전에 미리 확인해 두세요.

이 영상의 핵심 어휘

영상에 나오는 익혀 둘 만한 단어 15개를 발음, 뜻과 함께 정리했습니다.

단어	발음	뜻
opponent 명사	/əˈpəʊ.nənt/	상대
straw 명사	/stɹɔ/	짚
argue 동사	/ˈɑɹ.ɡju/	논하다, 의논하다
dialogue 명사	/ˈdaɪəˌlɑɡ/	대화, 회화
belief 명사	/bɪˈliːf/	믿음
tactics 명사	/ˈtæktɪks/	전술
politician 명사	/ˌpɑ.ləˈtɪʃ.ən/	정치인, 정치가
atheist 명사	/ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/	무신론자
deeply 부사	/ˈdi(ː)pli/	깊이
reveal 동사	/ɹɪˈviːl/	나타내다, 드러내다
aspect 명사	/ˈæspɛkt/	양상
silly 형용사	/ˈsɪl.i/	어리석다
regulation 명사	/ˌɹɛɡjʊˈleɪʃən/	규칙
resort 명사	/ɹɪˈzɔɹt/	리조트, 휴양지
amongst	/əˈmʌŋst/	가운데, 사이

영상에 나오는 구동사

단어	뜻
go away 동사	떠나다, 떠나가다
point out 동사	가리키다

주의할 발음

화자는 doesn't, I've, you'll 같은 축약형과 약화된 형태를 10번 사용합니다. 들리는 대로 짧게 발음하세요.

“th” 소리: atheist /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/, strengthen /ˈstɹɛŋ(k)θən/, faithfully /ˈfeɪθfəli/
“sh”와 “zh” 소리: politician /ˌpɑ.ləˈtɪʃ.ən/, regulation /ˌɹɛɡjʊˈleɪʃən/, representation /ˌɹɛp.ɹə.zɛnˈteɪ.ʃən/, worship /ˈwɝ.ʃɪp/, addiction /əˈdɪkˌʃən/
긴 단어 — 강세 위치에 주의: politician /ˌpɑ.ləˈtɪʃ.ən/, necessarily /ˌnɛs.əˈsɛɹ.ə.li/, regulation /ˌɹɛɡjʊˈleɪʃən/, representation /ˌɹɛp.ɹə.zɛnˈteɪ.ʃən/, collaborative /kəˈlæb.ə.ɹə.tɪv/

이 영상으로 연습하는 방법

먼저 말하지 않고 영상을 끝까지 듣고 모르는 단어를 적어 둡니다.
0.75배속으로 한 문장씩 섀도잉을 시작하고, 익숙해지면 보통 속도로 돌아갑니다.
자신의 목소리를 녹음해 원본과 비교하고, opponent, straw, argue 같은 단어에 특히 주의합니다.

이 영상의 문법

화자가 가장 많이 쓰는 문형을 영상 속 실제 표현과 함께 정리했습니다.

문형	영상 속 표현
현재완료 have/has + 과거분사 — 과거의 일이 지금도 관련이 있을 때	has taught · have drifted · has won
수동태 be + 과거분사 — 누가 하는지보다 무슨 일이 일어나는지에 초점	been pointed · be expected · are fictionalised
관계절 who / which + 절 — 사람이나 사물에 대한 추가 정보	somebody who does · those who are

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법

쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.

섀도잉 방법: 단계별 전체 가이드 읽기 →

쉐도잉 연습: Why you should "steel man" other people - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

연습 모드 선택

앱 다운로드

같은 채널

Arguments for God: The Fine Tuning Argument

Shakespeare: Hamlet

“But you did it first!”: A defense of the whataboutism

The “Nietzsche Thesis”: Why we don’t really care about truth

Why you can't quit social media (and the Romans knew it)

Some brains are built for philosophy. Is yours?

The day you died (and didn't notice)

One of the cruellest things to tell any child

Every monster you fear is really you

The 4 moments that will change your life

3 philosophy classics that are better than self-help books

추천 영상

Why We Should Refuse to Get Into Arguments

How Can You Change Somebody's Opinion?

Become a great strategic thinker | Ian Bremmer

What Do I Project onto Other People?

The uncomfortable truth | Yuval Noah Harari

3 Things That Feel Like Progress But Aren't

Stuart & Cliffe Knechtle | Do Agnostics Just Want To Have Control? | Give Me an Answer

Why I Work So Hard Even Though I’ve Already "Made It"

Why You Should Talk To Strangers | Kio Stark | English Subtitles

How to debate a stupid person | Jonny Thomson