I find it very plausible that [Blues] are better able to pretend to be [Greens] than vice versa. But what follows from that?
That Blues understand Green arguments but aren’t persuaded by them (presumably because they have counterarguments), whereas Greens don’t understand Blue arguments and this makes it unlikely they have counterarguments.
Now let’s look at your three objections, near as I can tell your first objection amounts to “sometimes the people defending the incorrect position are heterogeneous, this gives them a large advantage in the test”, and your third objection amounts to “sometimes the people defending the incorrect position are homogeneous, this gives them a large advantage in the test”.
Now let’s look at you second objection: much as it may seem that way your opponents are not evil mutants whose position has no logic to it whatsoever, most position actually held by humans, especially intelligent humans have a certain logic to them. (And if you’re opponents’ position really has no logic to it beyond saying anything plausible sounding that backs up their conclusion, that’s very easy to imitate). Thus, the two positions have different logic to them and it will be hard for a person only familiar with one of those logics to imitate the other. On the other hand, if someone is familiar with the logic of both positions A and B, the fact that he nevertheless holds position A is evidence that A is in fact correct.
Blues understand Green arguments but aren’t persuaded by them (presumably because they have counterarguments), whereas Greens don’t understand Blue arguments and this makes it unlikely they have counterarguments.
This is a restatement of the hypothesis under discussion. (That inability to imitate convincingly is caused by lack of understanding.)
your third objection amounts to “sometimes the people defending the incorrect position are homogeneous, this gives them a large advantage in the test”.
You’ve failed to imitate my position. My third objection is about irrelevant detail, not homogeneity. (Perhaps you can suggest a better way I could have put it?)
your opponents’ position really has no logic to it beyond saying anything plausible-sounding that backs up their conclusion
Again, you’ve failed to imitate my position. For concreteness, let’s take Christopher Monckton as an example. It’s not that I think he’s saying “anything plausible-sounding”. His arguments have a logical structure which is imitable but they are embedded in a rhetorical structure that I would find very hard to imitate convincingly due to lack of practice. (I guess you could characterize this as a form of irrelevant detail and merge it with my objection 3 but I think these two sources of irrelevant detail are sufficiently different in origin and aim to be worth separating.)
His arguments have a logical structure which is imitable but they are embedded in a rhetorical structure that I would find very hard to imitate convincingly due to lack of practice.
I’m not sure where you’re drawing the line between logical and rhetorical structure. The most obvious rhetorical structure is that he acts like he alieves his position in addition to believing it.
That Blues understand Green arguments but aren’t persuaded by them (presumably because they have counterarguments), whereas Greens don’t understand Blue arguments and this makes it unlikely they have counterarguments.
Now let’s look at your three objections, near as I can tell your first objection amounts to “sometimes the people defending the incorrect position are heterogeneous, this gives them a large advantage in the test”, and your third objection amounts to “sometimes the people defending the incorrect position are homogeneous, this gives them a large advantage in the test”.
Now let’s look at you second objection: much as it may seem that way your opponents are not evil mutants whose position has no logic to it whatsoever, most position actually held by humans, especially intelligent humans have a certain logic to them. (And if you’re opponents’ position really has no logic to it beyond saying anything plausible sounding that backs up their conclusion, that’s very easy to imitate). Thus, the two positions have different logic to them and it will be hard for a person only familiar with one of those logics to imitate the other. On the other hand, if someone is familiar with the logic of both positions A and B, the fact that he nevertheless holds position A is evidence that A is in fact correct.
This is a restatement of the hypothesis under discussion. (That inability to imitate convincingly is caused by lack of understanding.)
You’ve failed to imitate my position. My third objection is about irrelevant detail, not homogeneity. (Perhaps you can suggest a better way I could have put it?)
Again, you’ve failed to imitate my position. For concreteness, let’s take Christopher Monckton as an example. It’s not that I think he’s saying “anything plausible-sounding”. His arguments have a logical structure which is imitable but they are embedded in a rhetorical structure that I would find very hard to imitate convincingly due to lack of practice. (I guess you could characterize this as a form of irrelevant detail and merge it with my objection 3 but I think these two sources of irrelevant detail are sufficiently different in origin and aim to be worth separating.)
I’m not sure where you’re drawing the line between logical and rhetorical structure. The most obvious rhetorical structure is that he acts like he alieves his position in addition to believing it.