Ideological Turing Test

COULD YOU PASS AN IDEOLOGICAL TURING TEST?

In 1950, pioneering computer scientist Alan Turing proposed a test that could be used to decide if an artificial intelligence is really conscious: Could it pass as human? If a series of judges were to converse with both an artificial intelligence and a real human, would they be able to tell reliably which was which?

That’s now called the Turing test. The ideological Turing test, suggested by economist Bryan Caplan,11 is based on similar logic. It’s a way to determine if you really understand an ideology: Can you explain it as a believer would, convincingly enough that other people couldn’t tell the difference between you and a genuine believer?

If you think Haskell is the best programming language, can you explain why someone might hate it?

If you’re in favor of legal abortion, can you explain why someone wouldn’t be?

If you think it’s clear that climate change is a serious problem, can you explain why someone might be skeptical?

In theory, you would consult believers from the other side to see if you passed the test. But that’s not always feasible. It’s time-consuming, and you may not be able to easily find an audience on the other side whom you trust to give your attempt a good-faith listen. Most of the time, I treat the ideological Turing test as a kind of “North Star,” an ideal to guide my thinking: Does my characterization of the other side at least sound like something they might actually say or endorse?

Measured against that standard, most attempts fall obviously short.* For a case in point, consider one liberal blogger’s attempt at modeling the conservative worldview. She begins, “If I can say anything at this bleak hour, with the world splitting at its seams, it’s this: conservatives, I understand you. It may not be something you expect to hear from a liberal, but I do. I understand you.”12 An earnest start, but her attempt to empathize with conservatives quickly devolves into caricature. Here’s her impression of the conservative take on various subjects:

On capitalism: “Those at the top should have as much as possible. That’s the natural order . . . It’s not a secret; just don’t be lazy. Why is everyone so poor and lazy?”

On feminists: “Those women make noise, make demands, take up space . . . Who do they think they are?”

On abortion: “What a travesty . . . women making these kinds of radical decisions for themselves.”

On queer and transgender people: “They shouldn’t exist. They’re mistakes. They must be. But wait, no. God doesn’t make mistakes . . . Oh dear. You don’t know what’s happening anymore, and you don’t like it. It makes you feel dizzy. Out of control.”

It’s hardly necessary to run this text by an audience of conservatives to be able to predict that it would flunk their ideological Turing test. Her “conservative” take on capitalism sounds like a cartoon villain. The language about women taking up space and making decisions for themselves is how liberals frame these issues, not conservatives. And her impression of a conservative suddenly realizing his views on transgender and queer people are internally inconsistent (“They’re mistakes . . . But wait, no. God doesn’t make mistakes.”) just looks like a potshot she couldn’t resist taking.

She can’t help but slip back into her own voice as a liberal-who-hates-conservativism, even while trying to speak as a conservative. The overall effect is reminiscent of that joke about the schoolboy who handed his teacher a note from his “mother”: Dear Teacher, Please excuse Billy from school today because he is sick. Sincerely, My mom.

The ideological Turing test is typically seen as a test of your knowledge: How thoroughly do you understand the other side’s beliefs? But it also serves as an emotional test: Do you hold your identity lightly enough to be able to avoid caricaturing your ideological opponents?

Even being willing to attempt the ideological Turing test at all is significant. People who hold their identity strongly often recoil at the idea of trying to “understand” a viewpoint they find disgustingly wrong or harmful. It feels like you’re giving aid and comfort to the enemy. But if you want to have a shot at actually changing people’s point of view rather than merely being disgusted at how wrong they are, understanding those views is a must.