Not to disagree with this exercise, but I think that the name ITT is overused and should not be applied here. Why not just ask "What are some good arguments against startups?"

That's a different question.

A good argument against startups might be set VC as an asset class don't outperfom the stock market. On the other hand it's unlikely that the average person working at a company would make that argument, so arguing it would fail the ideological turing test.

Argument thread!

You should probably stay at your big company job because the people who are currently startup founders are self-selected for, on average, different things than you're selecting yourself for by trying to jump on a popular trend, and so their success is only a weak predictor of your success.

Startups often cash out by generating hype and getting bought for ridiculous amounts of money by a big company. But they are very, very often, in more sober analysis, not worth this money. From a societal perspective this is bad because it's not properly aligning incentives with wealth creation, and from a new-entrant perspective this is bad because you likely fail if the bubble pops before you can sell.

This comment got 6+ responses, but none that actually attempted to answer the question.

Likely because the answers called for a ITT but provided no questions for the ITT.

Startups typically do not create new technology; instead they create new technology-dependent business models.

There is a group of people (called VCs) whose livelihood depends on having a supply of bright young people who want to jump into the startup world. These people act as professional activists in favor of startup culture. This would be fine, except there is no countervailing force of professional critics. This creates a bias in our collective evaluation of the culture.

Both of those seem to me like failing the Intellectual Turing Test. I would have a hard time thinking that the average person who works at a big company would make those arguments.

You never explained what you mean by "startup culture," nor "good."

One can infer something from your arguments. But different arguments definitely appeal to different definitions of "good." In particular: good for the founder, good for the startup employee, good for the VC, and good for society.

There is no reason to believe that it should be good for all of them. In particular, a belief that equity is valuable to startup employees is good for founders and VCs, but if it is false, it is bad for startup employees. If startups are good for society, it may be good for society for the employees to be deceived. But if startups are good for society, it may be a largely win-win for startups to be considered virtuous and everyone involved in startups to receive status. Isn't that the kind of thing "culture" does, rather than promulgate specific beliefs?

By "startup culture" you seem to mean anything that promotes startups. Do these form a natural category? If they are all VC propaganda, then I guess that's a natural category, but it probably isn't a coherent culture. Perhaps there is a pro-startup culture that confabulates specific claims when asked. But are the details actually motivating people, or is it really the amorphous sense of virtue or status?

Sometimes I see people using "startup culture" in a completely different way. They endorse the claim that startups are good for society, but condemn the current culture as unproductive.

I might be able to imitate a homeopath, but I can't imitate a rational, educated, homeopath, because if I thought there was such a thing I would be a homeopath.

Great point!

I guess the point of ITT is that even when you disagree with your opponents, you have the ability to see their (wrong) model of the world exactly as they have it, as opposed to a strawman.

For example, if your opponent believes that 2+2=5, you pass ITT by saying "2+2=5", but you fail it by saying "2+2=7". From your perspective, both results are "equally wrong", but from their perspective, the former is correct, while the latter is plainly wrong.

In other words, the goal of ITT isn't to develop a "different, but equally correct" map of the territory (because if you would believe in correctness of the opponent's map, it would also become your map), but to develop a correct map of your opponent's map (as opposed to an incorrect map of your opponent's map).

So, on some level, while you pass an ITT, you know you are saying something false or misleading; even if just by taking correct arguments and assigning incorrect weights to them. But the goal isn't to derive a correct "alternative truth"; it is to have a good model of your opponent's mind.

Being a believer in X inherently means, for a rationalist, that you think there are no good arguments against X.

Huh? You are proposing a very stark, black-and-white, all-or-nothing position. Recall that for a rationalist a belief has a probability associated with it. It doesn't have to be anywhere near 1. Moreover, a rationalist can "believe" (say, with probability > 90%) something against which good arguments exist. It just so happens that the arguments pro are better and more numerous than the arguments con. That does not mean that the arguments con are not good or do not exist.

And, of course, you should not think yourself omniscient. One of the benefits of steelmanning is that it acquaints you with the counterarguments. Would you know what they are if you didn't look?

No good arguments, or the weight of the arguments for X are greater than the weight of the arguments against X?

Being a believer in X inherently means, for a rationalist, that you think there are no good arguments against X.

No, http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/

In high level debating at the debating world championship the participants are generally able to give good arguments for both sides of every issue.