Dialectical Mapping & Steelmanning

Table of Contents

• Purpose
• When to Use
• What Is It?
• Workflow
• Common Patterns
• Guardrails
• Quick Reference

Purpose

Dialectical Mapping & Steelmanning helps you escape false binary choices by:

• Steelmanning both positions (presenting them in their strongest, most charitable form)
• Mapping the underlying principles and tradeoffs (what each side values and sacrifices)
• Synthesizing a principled third way (transcending "pick a side" to find higher-order resolution)
• Making tradeoffs explicit (clarifying costs/benefits of synthesis vs pure positions)

This moves debates from "A vs B" to "here's the best of both, here's what we sacrifice, here's why it's worth it."

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• False dichotomies: Debate framed as binary choice ("we must pick A or B") but better options exist
• Polarized positions: Both sides dug in, uncharitable interpretations, strawman arguments flying
• Hidden tradeoffs: Each position has merits and costs, but these aren't explicit
• Principle conflicts: Seemingly opposed values (speed vs quality, freedom vs safety, innovation vs stability)
• Synthesis needed: User explicitly wants "third way", "best of both worlds", or "transcend the debate"
• Strategic tensions: Business decisions with legitimate competing priorities (growth vs profitability, centralization vs autonomy)
• Design tradeoffs: Technical or product decisions with no clear winner (monolith vs microservices, simple vs powerful)
• Policy debates: Governance questions with multiple stakeholder values (privacy vs security, efficiency vs equity)

Trigger phrases: "steelman", "thesis-antithesis-synthesis", "Hegelian dialectic", "false dichotomy", "third way", "both sides have a point", "transcend the debate", "resolve the tension"

What Is It?

Dialectical Mapping & Steelmanning is a three-step reasoning process:

1. Steelman Thesis & Antithesis: Present each position in its strongest form (charitable interpretation, best arguments, underlying principles)
2. Map Tradeoffs: Identify what each side optimizes for and what it sacrifices
3. Synthesize Third Way: Find a higher-order principle or hybrid approach that honors both positions' core values while acknowledging new tradeoffs

Quick example:

Debate: "Should our startup prioritize growth or profitability?"

Typical (bad) framing: Binary choice. Pick one, argue against the other.

Steelman Thesis (Growth):

• Principle: Market position compounds. Early lead captures network effects, brand recognition, talent attraction.
• Best argument: In winner-take-most markets, second place is first loser. Profitability can wait; market share can't.
• Tradeoff: Accept cash burn, potential failure if funding dries up.

Steelman Antithesis (Profitability):

• Principle: Sustainability enables long-term strategy. Profitable companies control their destiny, survive downturns, outlast competitors.
• Best argument: Growth without unit economics is vanity metric. Profit proves business viability.
• Tradeoff: Accept slower growth, risk being outpaced by well-funded competitors.

Synthesis (Profitable Growth):

• Higher principle: Capital efficiency. Grow as fast as sustainable unit economics allow.
• Third way: Focus on channels/segments with healthy LTV:CAC (>3:1), deprioritize expensive acquisition. Scale what works profitably, experiment cheaply elsewhere.
• New tradeoffs: Slower than "growth at all costs", requires discipline to say no, may miss land-grab opportunities in subsidized markets.
• Why it works: Preserves optionality (can raise capital from position of strength OR bootstrap), builds durable moat (real economics, not just scale), reduces existential risk.

Result: Escaped false binary. Found principled synthesis with explicit tradeoffs.

Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

Dialectical Mapping Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Frame the debate
- [ ] Step 2: Steelman Position A (Thesis)
- [ ] Step 3: Steelman Position B (Antithesis)
- [ ] Step 4: Map principles and tradeoffs
- [ ] Step 5: Synthesize third way
- [ ] Step 6: Validate synthesis quality

Step 1: Frame the debate

Identify the topic, the two polarized positions (Thesis vs Antithesis), and the apparent tension. Clarify why this feels like a binary choice. See Common Patterns for typical debate structures.

Step 2: Steelman Position A (Thesis)

Present Position A in its strongest form: underlying principle (what it values), best arguments (strongest case for this position), supporting evidence, and legitimate tradeoffs it accepts. Use resources/template.md for structure. Avoid strawmanning—present version that adherents would recognize as fai

...