You understand a position only if you can state it well enough to pass as a sincere adherent.
Caplan's 2011 proposal. It is a stronger standard than steelmanning because it is falsifiable: hand your statement to actual adherents and see whether they can tell.
In practice
- A policy analyst who can write the opposing brief well enough that its advocates would sign it has understood the objection.
- A manager who can state a resigning employee's reasons in terms the employee would accept has learned something the exit interview did not produce.