= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nyan_sandwich comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1742)
What is an ideological turing test?
EDIT: thanks, got it.
Bryan Caplan's explanation, courtesy of google.
It refers to this post by Bryan Caplan.
Makes more sense to say "ideological purity test." But since that is nothing like a Turing test, I notice I am also confused.
A Turing test is when a computer tries to impersonate a human. An ideological Turing test is when a person who doesn't hold an ideology tries to impersonate a person who holds the ideology.
Is the analogy more clear now?
I liked it. Close to as clear, concise as you could hope to be.
So if I get this right, a certain statement "passing" an ideological Turing test is when if a person "says" the statement (with the right conviction and behavior) to someone who actually follows the target "ideology" (which I assume is to be inferred from the context, e.g. radical feminists), that latter person will believe the former to be part of this ideology?
Person A: [Statement S]
Ideologist: You're an ideologist!
(S passes i-Turing test)
Person B: [Statement T]
Ideologist: (IsIdeologist(B) remains neutral or goes down)
(T fails i-Turing test)
EDIT: Formatted the image-example a bit better.
Got it.
But I wasn't referring to radical feminists. The "sexism requires historical disadvantage" view is common (though not universal) in mainstream feminist circles. It is the view of Finally Feminism 101, which is probably the largest feminist blog aimed at non-feminist readers. It was also taught at my university.
More generally, the idea that taking a potentially damaging action with respect to a vulnerable target is morally distinguishable from taking the exact same action against a well-defended target is relatively uncontroversial even without reference to feminism at all.
Thanks, that puts in context what you were talking about. Radical feminists is just the first thing that was mentally available when I looked for "identifiable ideological social group".
If you're willing to do me a favour, please list at least a few buzzwords or (basic) concepts which you would spontaneously ascribe to radical feminism but not or less so to other feminisms. (This implies not looking up anything about it before sending the comment.)
Anyone else can feel free to do so as well, of course, though in that case i suggest you also shouldn't read any answers to this request before fulfilling it.
The basic concept I associate differentially with "radical" feminism is that the whole idea of gender is so pernicious and pervasive that I can't get anywhere worth being as long as I operate in a framework that supports it; a necessary first step is discarding the idea of gender and everything that supports or depends on it.
To use a local comparison, I consider the relationship between ordinary feminism and radical feminism roughly analogous to the relationship between "human brains and institutions are irrational, so if we wish to rid ourselves of irrationality (which we ought to wish, since irrationality causes suffering) we need to do a lot of careful work" and "human brains and institutions are insurmountably irrational, and trying to improve our rationality using those irrational brains and institutions is a waste of time; the only way to significantly reduce irrationality is to eradicate existing brains and institutions and replace them with something better."
This seems like a fairly good description of that concept, and how it is related to radical feminism. Not that i know: while i'm somewhat interested in radical feminism, i can't honestly claim to be a radical feminist. (I do claim to have some radical views and some feminist views... but that combination doesn't necessarily result in the radical feminism.)
I don't know about your comparison. I believe that (i don't understand radical feminism well enough) or (i don't understand the local topic well enough) or (your comparison doesn't fit well). And i can't think of more useful criticism now.
Just to be clear, I'm not a radical feminist either, nor any kind of expert, I'm just sharing the best model I've got.
"Overthrow", "Patriarchy", "pervasive", "pernicious", "subconscious motive", "you're wrong and harmful and won't even know how/why nor can stop it until you're part of us" (arguably not specific to radical feminism, lots of cults and ideological groups throw around this form of argument, but it doesn't seem present in non-radical feminist circles in my experience).
The rest is mostly a central accusatory behavior: Everyone is guilty and should feel such until they're perfect examples of ideal radical feminists. No matter how careful they are, if they're not the exact model of a radical feminist, they're doing tons of social damage.
Note that most of my impression of "radical feminism" comes from a few google searches, the whole debacle centered around eridu in Yvain's Worst Argument in the World article, and some fairly one-sided references that eridu gave, a few of which were scientific enough for me to take seriously. I'm probably not the best person to paint a clear picture of the ideology and I probably wouldn't pass an ideological turing test, but if you're looking for a "what most laypeople probably think", this might be pretty close.
Thank you for this.
The term "patriarchy" is commonly used by feminists other than radical ones.
The term "pervasive" is commonly used by me (i'm also not a radical feminist), not only in reference to (traditional) sexism. And more on topic, i think i read it now and then from many non-radical feminists as well.
I had to look up a translation for "pernicious" in a dictionary. This indicates that before i rarely if ever read it at all, even in some content i read that's authored by self-described radical feminists. Interesting.
I'm not used to the combination "subconscious motive", but claims of something that can be (and is) called subconscious going on, and that this propagates sexism, are fairly common in my corners of feminism.
Stances such as "you're wrong and harmful [...]" are fairly common among various radical groups (here the term radical on its own instead of as in radical feminism only). In wider feminism they might indeed be less common, or at least less commonly expressed (to you).
I think your characterisation of the "central accusatory behaviour" is an understatement. Radical feminists as far as i can tell seem to share my opinion that an ideal rejection of (othering/normative) societal indoctrination is "impossible" to attain currently (or more precisely: impractical).
Ah, the debacle again (or was this comment written earlier than your other one i answered? eh). Still not inclined enough to search for the relevant content all on my own, though.
I assumed so. So that's exactly what interested me in my request.
I'm ambivalent about that. At first i thought your articulation, if inaccurate, seemed closer to the truth than "what most laypeople probably think". Rereading your text now i don't really find anything to support that, though. But it's interesting material for me nonetheless!
"Pernicious" is an awesome word too rarely used.
That said, I don't find it more often used by feminists than by anyone else.
If you don't mind saying, what is your preferred language?