For years, a big part of my process for evaluating a new idea was to ask questions and mentally argue for and against various propositions. This might force me to read or think a bit more, but that process almost inherently tries to find the strongest (by whatever values constitute 'strong' to me) version of a point of view.
Is it foolproof? No, I find new arguments and facts.
But I do generally find it easier to see where other people are coming from in a discussion because I can usually reference back to my own interior dialogue to see where the idea at least could have come from (whether it did or not).
Is that steelmanning? I have no earthly idea, but it works for me.
It seems the hard part is convincing people that this kind of dialogue is important.
The purpose of dialogue is to explore differences in thinking and possibly emerge with a new shared understanding.
To me, steelmanning is offering the other person the courtesy of the same thing you just insisted they “should” do if they want to have a discussion with you.