The Ideological Turing Test: a behavioural measure of open-mindedness and perspective-taking

Truly understanding the position of ideological opponents is challenging, yet crucial if our goals are to avoid escalation or further polarisation, identify areas of agreement, and ultimately reduce misunderstanding. We operationalise the idea of an ‘Ideological Turing Test’, as a behavioural measure of the extent to which people are able to accurately represent the position of their ideological opponents. The original ‘Turing Test’ challenged any artificial intelligence to successfully mimic human dialogue- the test would be passed if a human was convinced that the machine was a human. The Ideological Turing Test has been proposed (Caplan 2011 Econlib) as a requirement for would-be human debaters - can they successfully mimic their ideological opponent’s arguments to the extent that their opponent endorses the argument as strongly as their own? Crucially, this ‘Test’ offers a behavioural measure of open mindedness which goes beyond self-report measures. It is not possible to pass an Ideological Turing Test by believing you understand the other’s perspective - you must articulate those arguments to the satisfaction of those who hold them. In this study, we operationalise the Ideological Turing Test by recruiting participants from opposite sides of commonly polarising debates (Covid-19 Vaccines, Brexit, Veganism), and asking them to provide reasons both for and against their position. These reasons were rated by participants from the opposite side of the debate. Our criteria for “passing” the Ideological Turing Test is if an argument is agreed with by opponents to the same extent or higher than arguments made by proponents. We found no difference in minority or majority positions in their ability to pass the Ideological Turing Test (i.e. no difference in passing rate between those who are for or against Covid-19 vaccines). However we did find that those who pass the Ideological Turing Test are less judgemental towards their opponents, in that they are less likely to rate them as ignorant, immoral or irrational. The Ideological Turing Test not only provides a behavioural measure of open-mindedness, it also provides insights into the scope and diversity of arguments within and between polarising topics.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2025-08-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/2e9wn_v3
Primary Topic
Cognitive Science and Education Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Ideological Turing Test: a behavioural measure of open-mindedness and perspective-taking

Daniel Brady, Charlotte Brand, Tom Stafford
Cognitive Science and Education Research
article

The Ideological Turing Test: a behavioural measure of open-mindedness and perspective-taking

Daniel Brady, Charlotte Brand, Tom Stafford
article en

Abstract

Truly understanding the position of ideological opponents is challenging, yet crucial if our goals are to avoid escalation or further polarisation, identify areas of agreement, and ultimately reduce misunderstanding. We operationalise the idea of an ‘Ideological Turing Test’, as a behavioural measure of the extent to which people are able to accurately represent the position of their ideological opponents. The original ‘Turing Test’ challenged any artificial intelligence to successfully mimic human dialogue- the test would be passed if a human was convinced that the machine was a human. The Ideological Turing Test has been proposed (Caplan 2011 Econlib) as a requirement for would-be human debaters - can they successfully mimic their ideological opponent’s arguments to the extent that their opponent endorses the argument as strongly as their own? Crucially, this ‘Test’ offers a behavioural measure of open mindedness which goes beyond self-report measures. It is not possible to pass an Ideological Turing Test by believing you understand the other’s perspective - you must articulate those arguments to the satisfaction of those who hold them. In this study, we operationalise the Ideological Turing Test by recruiting participants from opposite sides of commonly polarising debates (Covid-19 Vaccines, Brexit, Veganism), and asking them to provide reasons both for and against their position. These reasons were rated by participants from the opposite side of the debate. Our criteria for “passing” the Ideological Turing Test is if an argument is agreed with by opponents to the same extent or higher than arguments made by proponents. We found no difference in minority or majority positions in their ability to pass the Ideological Turing Test (i.e. no difference in passing rate between those who are for or against Covid-19 vaccines). However we did find that those who pass the Ideological Turing Test are less judgemental towards their opponents, in that they are less likely to rate them as ignorant, immoral or irrational. The Ideological Turing Test not only provides a behavioural measure of open-mindedness, it also provides insights into the scope and diversity of arguments within and between polarising topics.

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 77%
Cognitive Science and Education Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.