I have decided to do another Intellectual Turing Test, by popular demand, and because observably I am really bad at keeping this blog updated and I think other people should produce some content for it for a change.
The Intellectual Turing Test is an idea invented by Bryan Caplan. The regular Turing test is a test for programmers: can you write a computer program which a human being cannot tell apart from another human being? The Intellectual Turing Test is a test for people who believe things: can you explain your opponent’s viewpoints in such a way that your opponent cannot tell it apart from someone who legitimately believes the opinion? If you can, it shows you understand your opponent’s positions on a deep level.
How it’s going to work: once the final topic is chosen, I will write one to three questions and leave registration for the ITT open for a week. I will give everyone (on both sides) two weeks to write answers to the questions from both the pro side and the anti side. I will run first the pro submissions and then the anti submissions, and the audience will vote on whether they think it’s real or a fake. At the end, I’ll reveal who wrote what and give special recognition to the people who did the best job of impersonating the other side. You may read previous ITTs in this blog here.
Unfortunately, in the past there has been difficulty finding a topic where half the participants are on one side and half of them are on the other. Therefore, I have decided to do a questionnaire first.
The questionnaire contains a series of statements and the option to say whether you are on the “pro” or “anti” side, or wouldn’t participate. (If you have a complex special-snowflake opinion that doesn’t fall neatly into pro or anti, please check “wouldn’t participate.” If you find the topic boring and would not want to participate, please check “wouldn’t participate.”) There are a variety of topics, so even if you find the first couple suggestions unappealing, please keep going.
There is also an option to give me your email, so I can email you when I have chosen the final topic.
Please share as widely as you can! The more diverse a set of participants we have, the more interesting the Intellectual Turing Test is for everyone.
Thing of Things 
On quite a few of these questions, my answer depends on a nitpick or a rather subjective read of the question. In the first case, if I were to write two answers, they would both mostly support one option, but one of them would have one or more ‘but’s.’ I have my doubts whether that makes for a good submission.
In the second case, you’d probably get people arguing very different claims, making it hard to compare the submissions.
LikeLike
As I said in the post, nitpicky people with special snowflake opinions should check ‘I would not participate.’
LikeLike
Wait, when we say “I would be on the pro side.” does that mean we’re writing a pro side position for the ITT (and our real position is the anti side), or does that mean our real position is the pro side and we’d be writing for the anti side?
LikeLike
Sorry, put down your real position.
LikeLike
If it’s like previous ones, everyone writes answers for both sides (so you’d write your actual position for the side you’re on, and what you think someone on the other side would say for the other side).
LikeLike
How would the EA cause one work?
LikeLike
Everyone would write an essay for their own cause area and for the two cause areas they don’t agree with. (To keep the writing burden low, it’d only be one question instead of three.)
LikeLike