Ideological Turing Test

[Tahuti]

How much do you know about the ideologies you attack? To find out, behold...

The Ideological Turing Test!

Basically, it boils down to having to impersonate a Libertarian, Conservative or whatever and getting people to think you actually are one of the people you are impersonating.

 

[Mise]

I'm pretty sure I could argue convincingly in favour of a conservative position, but I'm not sure I could successfully mimic a conservative and their particular manner of argumentation. I think they are two different things and I'm not sure the test will actually achieve its aims for this reason.

 

[Tahuti]

Society is more than just the sum of its individuals. And some individuals arguably exist outside it. We cannot just reduce the reason d'etre of all human life to just economic variables and individual self-interest, much less put forward policies that take into account only these things. Immigration and Free Trade are contradictory to self-sufficiency and thus inhibit our abilities to be able to cling to our culture and our essence. It obliterates who we are, for each individual is the product of his or her community. Likewise, gay marriage and abortion are the product of the arrogant view that individuals, not families are the basic unit of society, corrupting these, and so the whole of society.

The nation is the complete end of morality, for it gives us the only reason to live, more so than vain individualism and impersonal universalism.

Spoiler :

I was trying to impersonate an ultra-nationalist

 

[Defiant47]

I'm pretty sure I could argue convincingly in favour of a conservative position, but I'm not sure I could successfully mimic a conservative and their particular manner of argumentation. I think they are two different things and I'm not sure the test will actually achieve its aims for this reason.

Just ignore statistics and cite anecdotes.

 

[Mise]

Society is more than just the sum of its individuals. And some individuals arguably exist outside it. We cannot just reduce the reason d'etre of all human life to just economic variables and individual self-interest, much less put forward policies that take into account only these things. Immigration and Free Trade are contradictory to self-sufficiency and thus inhibit our abilities to be able to cling to our culture and our essence. It obliterates who we are, for each individual is the product of his or her community. Likewise, gay marriage and abortion are the product of the arrogant view that individuals, not families are the basic unit of society, corrupting these, and so the whole of society.

The nation is the complete end of morality, for it gives us the only reason to live, more so than vain individualism and impersonal universalism.

Spoiler :

I was trying to impersonate an ultra-nationalist

Yeah, see, those may be the arguments that the more philosophical nationalists use, but it is not a good impression of an actual nationalist. An actual nationalist would talk about how great this nation is, how great its people are, how great its values are, and how we must prevent them from being destroyed by liberal ideals and the influence of foreign, disruptive elements. He doesn't appeal to morality or nebulous concepts like "universalism" or "individualism"; he appeals to our love of country, tradition, family and history.

While an ideology might have a coherent philosophical underpinning, most people who support that ideology don't. Arguing convincingly for an opposing ideology and successfully imitating an opposing ideology's proponent are two different things. "French culture and traditional French values are being destroyed by fundamentalist Muslim immigrants" would be a better impression of a FN supporter than what you wrote (noting that you are not French of course).

 

[Crezth]

I'm not sure it proves anything but on many occasions I've gotten people to believe I was a conservative or libertarian (or liberal ). Of course, I sympathize a lot with the libertarian position, so that might have something to do with it.

The key thing to remember is that everyone has their own coherent logic: even if it's wrong, it ultimately informs the rest of their position. So you simply latch on to the basic premise and try to work from there.

Arguing the other side's economics is easy for me though. I don't know a lot about economics to start with, but simply saying stuff like "welfare will make people lazy because they'll get money for doing nothing and then just keep doing nothing" is quite effective at convincing someone of your conservatism.

 

[Tahuti]

Yeah, see, those may be the arguments that the more philosophical nationalists use, but it is not a good impression of an actual nationalist. An actual nationalist would talk about how great this nation is, how great its people are, how great its values are, and how we must prevent them from being destroyed by liberal ideals and the influence of foreign, disruptive elements. He doesn't appeal to morality or nebulous concepts like "universalism" or "individualism"; he appeals to our love of country, tradition, family and history.

While an ideology might have a coherent philosophical underpinning, most people who support that ideology don't. Arguing convincingly for an opposing ideology and successfully imitating an opposing ideology's proponent are two different things. "French culture and traditional French values are being destroyed by fundamentalist Muslim immigrants" would be a better impression of a FN supporter than what you wrote (noting that you are not French of course).

I actually had more radical people in mind. But indeed, those are quite valid points as well. One must note that nationalists come in a lot of flavors from the elitist Third Position ultranationalism I attempted to impersonate to what I would call "Daily Mail Nationalism" which would included the sentiments you mentioned earlier.

I'm not sure it proves anything but on many occasions I've gotten people to believe I was a conservative or libertarian (or liberal ). Of course, I sympathize a lot with the libertarian position, so that might have something to do with it.

The basic premise of Libertarianism is that society is composed of individuals and that those individuals are the basis of all morality, not society itself. A communitarian (in the sense of the sub-national counterpart of nationalism) may want to support zoning laws to preserve the spirit of the community, which is an issue that is not of interest to libertarians. American Liberals think similarly, but also believe that inaliable rights extend to unconditional access to certain goods, like health care.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Ideological Turing Test is a concept invented by American economist Bryan Caplan to test whether a political or ideological partisan correctly understands the arguments of his or her intellectual adversaries: the partisan is invited to answer questions or write an essay posing as his opposite number. If neutral judges cannot tell the difference between the partisan's answers and the answers of the opposite number, the candidate is judged to correctly understand the opposing side.

The problem I'm seeing here is that there's no guarantee the "neutral" has any better grasp on things than you do. If the "neutral" is your average punter, you're really just being asked for an impression rather than an argument, which is more about understanding rhetorical style than political philosophy.

 

[The_J]

No link to an online test ^^?

I'm pretty sure I can argue for and against every ideological topic you give me, as well as for the general economic issues. It will just be a difference in the time span, when the ridiculous arguing techniques begin to appear.

 

[Angst]

I've actually considered doing this for a month on CFC.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

How much do you know about the ideologies you attack? To find out, behold...

The Ideological Turing Test!

Basically, it boils down to having to impersonate a Libertarian, Conservative or whatever and getting people to think you actually are one of the people you are impersonating.

Impersonating a conservative is easy.

 

[cybrxkhan]

USA #1!

Spoiler :

That was my cheap impersonation of an American nationalist.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

USA #1!

Spoiler :

That was my cheap impersonation of an American nationalist.

The terrorists are jealous of our freedom.

 

[Perfection]

USA #1 is an objective fact that is not tied to any ideology.

 

[Tahuti]

USA #1!

Spoiler :

That was my cheap impersonation of an American nationalist.

Actually, it is an impersonation of Dachs' impersonation of a random impersonation of a Conservative that is impersonating a Conservative in the mind of formaldehyde.

 

[cybrxkhan]

USA #1 is an objective fact that is not tied to any ideology.

Spoken like a true 'Murican.

 

[Perfection]

Spoken like anyone who cares about truth.

 

[Earthling]

Well, that's definitely an article that should be deleted for lack of notability and reliable secondary sources.

/deletionist perspective