![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.conversiondiary.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/09\/7_quick_takes_sm1.jpg\" "\\"7_quick_takes_sm\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a>\u2014 1 \u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n All the entries in the Ideological Turing Test are up, and I could really use your help bumping up the sample size. \u00a0Voting in the atheist round<\/a> ends Saturday night and polls for the Christian round<\/a> close Wednesday night. \u00a0Which means all will be revealed<\/em> on Thursday morning.<\/p>\n If you\u2019re visiting from Jen\u2019s blog and aren\u2019t quite sure what I\u2019m talking about, let me explain in the next Take. \u00a0(Regular readers, skip to #3).<\/p>\n <\/a>\u2014 2 \u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n In a normal Turing Test, computer scientists try to write a program that\u2019s really good at\u00a0mimicking\u00a0human conversation. They want one that\u2019s so good that if you talk to it, and then to a human volunteer, you can\u2019t tell which is which.<\/p>\n An Ideological Turing Test doesn\u2019t challenge computers to imitate humans. \u00a0It challenges us to imitate the people we fiercely disagree with. \u00a0You have to understand human conversation really well to be able to write a program that mimicks it, and you have to understand your opponents\u2019 arguments and thought processes really well to be able to write like them. \u00a0The Ideological Turing Test is meant to catch us making faulty assumptions about the people we\u2019re fighting with.<\/p>\n So, in round one<\/a>, atheists give honest answers to prompts and Christians try to blend in by giving the answers they think an atheist would right. \u00a0In round two<\/a>, the roles shift and it\u2019s Christians who are sincere and atheists who are shamming. \u00a0I need you guys to read the entries and make your best guess about the true<\/em> beliefs of the author, so we can see how successful they were. \u00a0So pop back up to Quick Take number one and follow the links!<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/a>\u2014 3 \u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n Whilst in England, I somehow missed being a spectator at the Cotswold Shin-Kicking Championships<\/a>. \u00a0In which:<\/p>\n The sport of shin kicking is taken seriously around these parts, with contestants travelling the length and breadth of the country to turn up, stuff straw down their socks and kick each other to smithereens.<\/p>\n Shin-kicking judge James Wiseman gave us the lowdown on one of the simplest, but most painful, of Britain\u2019s sports.<\/p>\n \u201cThe easiest way to describe it is it\u2019s a bit like wrestling but with a lot of contact below the knees,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe idea is really to throw the person to the ground, but to throw the person to the ground you\u2019ve got to unbalance by kicking them first.\u201d<\/p>\n The rules of shin kicking are very simple. \u00a0Kick your opponent to the ground and you win. \u00a0No throwing, tripping or pulling \u2013 the \u201cfall\u201d must be precipitated by a kick to the shins.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019m pretty sure this is still morally superior to concussion and dementia-inducing football.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/a>\u2014 4 \u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n And speaking of physically punishing activities that have taken place in England, now or in the past, are you familiar with trials by ordeal<\/a>? \u00a0Academic Peter Leeson has an unusual analysis of them that will be forthcoming in the Journal of Law and Economics<\/em>. \u00a0Here\u2019s the abstract:<\/p>\n I argue that medieval judicial ordeals accurately assigned accused criminals\u2019 guilt and innocence. They did this by leveraging a medieval superstition called iudicium Dei. According to that superstition, God condemned the guilty and exonerated the innocent through clergy conducted physical tests. Medieval citizens\u2019 belief in iudicium Dei created a separating equilibrium in which only innocent defendants were willing to undergo ordeals. Conditional on observing a defendant\u2019s willingness to do so, the administering priest knew he was innocent and manipulated the ordeal to find this. My theory explains the peculiar puzzle of ordeals: trials of fire and water that should\u2019ve condemned most persons who underwent them did the reverse. They exonerated these persons instead. Boiling water rarely boiled persons who plunged their arms in it. Burning iron rarely burned persons who carried it. Ordeal outcomes were miraculous. But they were miracles of mechanism design.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/a>\u2014 5 \u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n I know I mentioned this contest a while ago, but the NYT<\/em> has finally reported on the result of their \u201cWhat is a Flame?\u201d contest<\/a>, which challenged people to come up with an explanation of what a flame is that would be fairly accurate and accessible to an eleven year old. \u00a0(In fact, the judges were all eleven year olds).<\/p>\n <\/a>\u2014 6 \u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n In the general awesomeness category: Wendy Tsao makes plushes out of children\u2019s sketches<\/a>.<\/p>\n And the Monster Engine artfully redraws and exaggerates children\u2019s drawings<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n <\/a>\u2014 7 \u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n Finally, I appreciate everyone\u2019s stamina in reading through the Turing Test entries. \u00a0When I\u2019m tired, I like to kickback with a cosplay montage that\u2019s also a lipsync. \u00a0Yay!<\/p>\nhttp:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=BbBe9X5qqe0<\/a>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n