I have been giving thought to the idea
of a Turing test for political ideology, which I first heard about at Daylight Atheism and you can
learn more about at The Library of Economics and Liberty.
The original Turing test was designed to measure artificial intelligence using
a computer’s ability to mimic human thought through a series of questions and
answers. An ideological Turing test
would do something similar for political ideology to see how well a progressive
could explain conservative ideology, or vice versa.
Now that I’m a couple of years
into this blogging thing, I see that one of the major obstacles to constructive
dialog is the inability of participants to articulate their opponents’
arguments or positions. Progressives are
very bad at understanding conservative arguments, and conservatives are very
bad at understanding progressive arguments. Given all of this, I find a
political ideology Turing test to be a fascinating idea.
Scoring of the ideological Turing
test would involve comparing the answers to those of true ideologues. Using the
abortion example, we would examine the progressive response describing the
conservative pro-life position and compare it to an actual conservative
describing her own pro-life position. If
the two answers are indistinguishable, you could say that the progressive truly
understands the conservative position. If the progressive scores high on a
whole series of questions, you could say he understands the conservative
ideology.
The challenge would be to craft
questions that force the respondent to truly understand motivations and driving
principles instead of simply regurgitating talking points and superficial
descriptions. For example, how do you ask the abortion question of a
progressive and get them off of the arguments for women’s reproductive rights?
And how do you avoid every conservative answer sounding like a soliloquy on
limited government?
Another challenge I foresee is
that I’m not sure true progressive and conservative ideologues understand their
own ideology. My guess is that a significant
number of conservatives would fail the Turing test for conservatism, unable to
articulate the underlying principles of their ideology. Progressives would
have a similar problem, knowing that they are on the left but unable to explain
the foundations of their thinking or the reasons why they believe what they
believe.
I really love the idea of an ideological
Turing test, but I’m not sure any of us are capable of producing the questions,
the answers, or the scoring methodology.
That is indeed a fascinating idea, H.R.
ReplyDeleteI think most progressives (and conservatives) are too caught up in general talking points and are often trying to use Saul Alinsky tactics to demean or belittle the other's arguments to the point that they really have not tried to see the argument from the other's perspective. I know that I am often guilty of this at times as well.
This is very true for most conservatives and nearly homogeneous with progressives. Our friend, John Myste, is actually one of the rare exceptions. If you can coax him out of one of his sarcastic or satirical modes, he often times will indeed articulate the conservative viewpoint correctly. The irony of this is that he usually does so when playing devil's advocate to his progressive fellow travelers.
I remember seeing something not too long ago (might have been Reason magazine) where someone did a study of this sort of thing. Turns out that conservatives can emulate progressive answers to ideological questions much better than progressives can emulate conservative answers.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested in seeing that, Joseph. In my experience, I spend a lot of time telling conservatives that they're knocking down strawmen instead of addressing my actual point. This, of course, proves nothing. I suppose I don't notice it as much with liberals because I don't argue with them as often.
ReplyDeleteI do find this an interesting idea though. One time, while arguing with a Christian, he kept insisting that I wasn't seeing his point. I then wrote out exactly what he was saying from what I understood, and he then had to admit that I did understand what he was saying. What he refused to acknowledge was that even though I understood him perfectly, I still found him to be spectacularly full of crap.
Yes, interesting. This idea seems in line with the tradition of high school debating. You know, you are assigned to a team of three to defend a proposition irrespective of your personal views. (I was always ambivalent about debating, but I can see its educational value.)
ReplyDeleteSometimes, though, I feel as if I waste too much time and effort on left-wing ideas. It's a bit like my knowledge of religion. I'm slightly embarrassed to know as much as I do and to spend as much time as I do thinking about something I have long rejected as being without foundation. (Something inside me is saying, 'Move on, for Christ's sake!')