> If you have these different ideologies, it’s associated with different filters on the world, different intakes of information, and so when it comes to constructing reference knowledge on an encyclopedic web page that’s supposed to thoroughly characterize an area, you do a much better job because you have a lot more information that’s attended to by this ideologically diverse group.
It's worth noting that this doesn't just apply to groups. There is such a thing as an ideologically diverse individual. See for example the Ideological Turing Test [1]. If an individual can successfully apply the filters of diverse ideologies, they at least have the potential to swap out those filters and apply them to their scientific judgments.
Perhaps we should should systematically apply and score such tests to scientists and use the results as additional data with which to evaluate their work. True, ideologically homogeneous people could learn just enough about their opponents' views to score well on such a test. But even cynically pursued, learning to do that would train them to have those diverse lenses in their toolkit, making them easier to apply and consider.
Your premise is appealing, but how would it fare knowing that conservatives are better at understanding liberals than liberals are at understanding conservatives (the former are able to empathise with liberals’ values, all the while holding their own as superior, whereas liberals do not consider conservative sensibilities to be ethical values at all)[1]? Don’t you think that an ability to empathise, which already exists at least in the case of conservatives, doesn’t seem to lead to more nuanced views? I’m not questioning the obvious benefits of education or injection of diverse points of view into one’s environment, only your premise.
Wouldn’t a simpler premise, making one’s bias apparent by stating a binary preference (conservative or liberal, but maybe less grossly-defined) somewhere in one’s piece of work, achieve the positive outcome of allowing readers to better analyse content, without betting on the potentially positive side-effects of trying to game a test?
It's worth noting that this doesn't just apply to groups. There is such a thing as an ideologically diverse individual. See for example the Ideological Turing Test [1]. If an individual can successfully apply the filters of diverse ideologies, they at least have the potential to swap out those filters and apply them to their scientific judgments.
Perhaps we should should systematically apply and score such tests to scientists and use the results as additional data with which to evaluate their work. True, ideologically homogeneous people could learn just enough about their opponents' views to score well on such a test. But even cynically pursued, learning to do that would train them to have those diverse lenses in their toolkit, making them easier to apply and consider.
[1] https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.htm...