You have a decent argument for the claim as literally stated here, but I think there’s some wrongheaded subtext. To try to highlight it, I’ll argue for another claim about the “Complete and Honest Ideological Turing Test” as you’ve defined it.
Suppose that an advocate of some position would in fact abandon that position if they knew all the evidence or arguments or counterarguments which I might use to argue against it (and observers correctly know this). Then, by your definition, I cannot pass their CHITT—but it’s not because I’ve failed to understand their position, it’s because they don’t know the things I know.
Suppose that an advocate of some position simply does not have any response which would not make them look irrational to some class of evidence or argument or counterargument which I would use to argue against the position (and observers correctly know this). Then again, by your definition, I cannot pass their CHITT—but again, it’s not because I’ve failed to understand their position, it’s because they in fact do not have responses which don’t make them look irrational.
The claim these two point toward: as defined, sometimes it is impossible to pass someone’s CHITT not because I don’t understand their position, but because… well, they’re some combination of ignorant and an idiot, and I know where the gaps in their argument are. This is in contrast to the original ITT, which was intended to just check whether I’ve actually understood somebody else’s position.
Making the subtext explicit: it seems like this post is trying to push a worldview in which nobody is ever Just Plain Wrong or Clearly Being An Idiot. And that’s not how the real world actually works—most unambiguously, it is sometimes the case that a person would update away from their current position if they knew the evidence/arguments/counterarguments which I would present.
You have a decent argument for the claim as literally stated here, but I think there’s some wrongheaded subtext. To try to highlight it, I’ll argue for another claim about the “Complete and Honest Ideological Turing Test” as you’ve defined it.
Suppose that an advocate of some position would in fact abandon that position if they knew all the evidence or arguments or counterarguments which I might use to argue against it (and observers correctly know this). Then, by your definition, I cannot pass their CHITT—but it’s not because I’ve failed to understand their position, it’s because they don’t know the things I know.
Suppose that an advocate of some position simply does not have any response which would not make them look irrational to some class of evidence or argument or counterargument which I would use to argue against the position (and observers correctly know this). Then again, by your definition, I cannot pass their CHITT—but again, it’s not because I’ve failed to understand their position, it’s because they in fact do not have responses which don’t make them look irrational.
The claim these two point toward: as defined, sometimes it is impossible to pass someone’s CHITT not because I don’t understand their position, but because… well, they’re some combination of ignorant and an idiot, and I know where the gaps in their argument are. This is in contrast to the original ITT, which was intended to just check whether I’ve actually understood somebody else’s position.
Making the subtext explicit: it seems like this post is trying to push a worldview in which nobody is ever Just Plain Wrong or Clearly Being An Idiot. And that’s not how the real world actually works—most unambiguously, it is sometimes the case that a person would update away from their current position if they knew the evidence/arguments/counterarguments which I would present.