I have confidence that I could take the ideological Turing test and pass myself off as being quite sensible to most of them.
Well, honestly, I doubt it—take e.g. your methodological individualism. From what I’ve read of it, (a few blog posts by Austrian economists) it basically appears as a crazy nonsensical fairytale, to be invoked as ideological justification for a “libertarian” narrative of society.
I claim that the historical dynamics of actually existing societies can’t be usefully explained by it—that a massive amount of historical… stuff is deterministic, intersubjective and not easily pinpointed but far from “abstract”/”ghostly”, and shapes individual wills first, even when it is in turn shaped by them. So, could you make a strong and unequivocal argument against methodological individualism, from whatever position?
shapes individual wills first, even when it is in turn shaped by them
This seems not only intuitively obvious, but a prerequisite for (e.g.) advertising and propaganda techniques actually working well enough for anyone to bother spending much money on them.
Methodological individualism doesn’t preclude someone from passing an ideological Turing test for someone who doesn’t use it, just as sanity doesn’t prevent someone from pretending to be insane.
Ok, go ahead, then. Hit me with your best shot. If you give me a halfway serious effort, I promise I’ll return the favour with a defense of MI. (From what I’ve heard, Popper is the best known non-Austrian champion of MI; need to read up on him.)
“It’s not fair! You’re so hateful! The government is us. It takes a village. It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. What difference at this point does it make?”
How’d I do?
But I don’t think this is the way the Turing test is supposed to work. I don’t just pontificate, you’re supposed to be an interrogator, and there’s supposed to be another blinded participant who is an average run of the mill American liberal. I think we lack the facilities, but it could be good fun.
Multiheaded would be the judge, and the US liberal would be the comparison who would have to be more convincingly liberal than me by Multiheaded’s estimation.
Why American? Because I’m American, and I wasn’t claiming to be able to impersonate every crazy on the globe.
As for why liberal, it’s a crazy I’m familiar with a large population here, and he said “Evil Meddling People”, so the shoe fit.
I don’t claim that I can impersonate every crazy in the world, only ones I’m familiar with.
Though Multiheaded really shouldn’t be the judge. It should be another run of the mill American liberal. The relevant Turing test is whether I can pass myself off as one of the tribe.
Well, honestly, I doubt it—take e.g. your methodological individualism. From what I’ve read of it, (a few blog posts by Austrian economists) it basically appears as a crazy nonsensical fairytale, to be invoked as ideological justification for a “libertarian” narrative of society.
I claim that the historical dynamics of actually existing societies can’t be usefully explained by it—that a massive amount of historical… stuff is deterministic, intersubjective and not easily pinpointed but far from “abstract”/”ghostly”, and shapes individual wills first, even when it is in turn shaped by them. So, could you make a strong and unequivocal argument against methodological individualism, from whatever position?
This seems not only intuitively obvious, but a prerequisite for (e.g.) advertising and propaganda techniques actually working well enough for anyone to bother spending much money on them.
Methodological individualism doesn’t preclude someone from passing an ideological Turing test for someone who doesn’t use it, just as sanity doesn’t prevent someone from pretending to be insane.
Ok, go ahead, then. Hit me with your best shot. If you give me a halfway serious effort, I promise I’ll return the favour with a defense of MI. (From what I’ve heard, Popper is the best known non-Austrian champion of MI; need to read up on him.)
“It’s not fair! You’re so hateful! The government is us. It takes a village. It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. What difference at this point does it make?”
How’d I do?
But I don’t think this is the way the Turing test is supposed to work. I don’t just pontificate, you’re supposed to be an interrogator, and there’s supposed to be another blinded participant who is an average run of the mill American liberal. I think we lack the facilities, but it could be good fun.
Multiheaded isn’t American, so why would you want the judge to be?
Multiheaded would be the judge, and the US liberal would be the comparison who would have to be more convincingly liberal than me by Multiheaded’s estimation.
Why American? Because I’m American, and I wasn’t claiming to be able to impersonate every crazy on the globe.
As for why liberal, it’s a crazy I’m familiar with a large population here, and he said “Evil Meddling People”, so the shoe fit.
I don’t claim that I can impersonate every crazy in the world, only ones I’m familiar with.
Though Multiheaded really shouldn’t be the judge. It should be another run of the mill American liberal. The relevant Turing test is whether I can pass myself off as one of the tribe.