That’s slightly different as I feel like the core of that is “do you have a good theory of mind of your opponent”. If I had to pretend I’m a believer of something I’m not I wouldn’t necessarily go for the median—I would go for what I, specifically, would be like, if I bought into the core premise. It’s the perspective I can empathise with the most, the minimal deviation from my current self.
what I, specifically, would be like, if I bought into the core premise
Interesting how ITT could be thought of as exploring various modes of being for a person, rather than about the content of various worldviews. Keeping identity small makes this quite an alien perspective (where even a lot of factual understanding fails to graduate to the level of endorsed factual belief). But ITT as modes of being is closer to the framing needed to develop an accurate theory of mind about people who don’t try to keep their identity small.
Inability to use the opposing side’s shibboleths, regardless of how well you mimic their reasoning.
Cases where someone’s reasoning is flawed enough that to imitate them you need to imitate specific modes of flawed reasoning—for instance, I would have a hard time imitating a homeopath on this basis, or a Holocaust denier.
As for the idea of “fleshman” itself, it is a reasonable concept but a bad piece of jargon which makes weird people here sound weirder. It isn’t hard to say things like “people usually take this to mean” or other synonyms for “typical believer”. Jargon has a cost.
https://www.lesswrong.com/w/ideological-turing-tests
That’s slightly different as I feel like the core of that is “do you have a good theory of mind of your opponent”. If I had to pretend I’m a believer of something I’m not I wouldn’t necessarily go for the median—I would go for what I, specifically, would be like, if I bought into the core premise. It’s the perspective I can empathise with the most, the minimal deviation from my current self.
Interesting how ITT could be thought of as exploring various modes of being for a person, rather than about the content of various worldviews. Keeping identity small makes this quite an alien perspective (where even a lot of factual understanding fails to graduate to the level of endorsed factual belief). But ITT as modes of being is closer to the framing needed to develop an accurate theory of mind about people who don’t try to keep their identity small.
Ideological turing tests tend to fail because of
Inability to use the opposing side’s shibboleths, regardless of how well you mimic their reasoning.
Cases where someone’s reasoning is flawed enough that to imitate them you need to imitate specific modes of flawed reasoning—for instance, I would have a hard time imitating a homeopath on this basis, or a Holocaust denier.
As for the idea of “fleshman” itself, it is a reasonable concept but a bad piece of jargon which makes weird people here sound weirder. It isn’t hard to say things like “people usually take this to mean” or other synonyms for “typical believer”. Jargon has a cost.
I suppose it sounds a bit gross! I think the “they’re made out of flesh!” old sci-fi story was in my head when I thought of that.