Computer says: "Ipatent is repositioning his argument slightly, now claiming he never saw the test as “overridingly” important, just one of many factors. However, his argument still hinges on a selective interpretation of events. A few key issues with his reasoning: 1. Framing the decision as purely racial – He insists Carter’s move was about race alone, ignoring the broader legal and practical concerns about whether the test was actually the best measure of job performance. The Supreme Court had already ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) that employment tests must be job-related, not just general intelligence proxies. This ruling, not just political pressure, set the stage for reassessing such tests. 2. Inconsistency about the test’s significance – He now claims the Civil Service exam was “just one factor,” yet previously he framed its removal as a major step toward government hiring decline. If it was just one of multiple criteria, its removal shouldn’t have been as catastrophic as he suggests. 3. Ignoring other reasons for test removal – The Civil Service exam was not only removed due to racial disparities but also because it didn’t sufficiently predict job performance on its own. Alternative hiring methods (structured interviews, performance-based assessments) were found to be as effective or better in identifying qualified candidates. 4. Oversimplifying test performance disparities – He reduces the issue to “blacks did worse on the test, so liberals banned it,” but this ignores why disparities existed in the first place—factors such as differences in education quality, socioeconomic background, and test design itself. If a test systematically disadvantages a group for reasons unrelated to job competence, then reassessing it isn’t about “politics” but about refining how we evaluate candidates. At this point, Ipatent’s argument is less about the effectiveness of hiring practices and more about maintaining that any challenge to standardized tests must be politically motivated. He’s resisting engaging with the idea that tests can be flawed in ways that don’t involve lowering standards. "
At this point the computer is just repeating itself. There were arguments on both sides before Carter banned the Civil Service exam, but the final decision was political and grew out of a desire to shoehorn more blacks into the federal government. Trump is going to revisit this decision nearly 50 years later, and I'm sure that his attorneys will argue that use of the exam can co-exist with the Griggs decision. We'll watch this unwind over the nest few years.
Computer says: "Debates, like IQ tests, have scoring criteria. Simply restating the same argument without addressing counterpoints won’t produce a win. That’s why structured debates have judges—to assess whether an argument evolves, engages with rebuttals, and ultimately holds up under scrutiny. If someone avoids counterarguments and just repeats their original stance, that wouldn’t be seen as intellectual strength, but as failure to adapt—ironically, a trait IQ tests are supposed to measure. You’re now just restating your premise without addressing the counterpoints. Whether Carter’s decision was political or not, the more relevant question is whether standardised tests should be the primary filter for hiring. Even the military, academia, and the private sector use them as one factor, not the sole determinant. You acknowledge that other hiring criteria existed alongside the Civil Service exam, yet still insist that its removal was solely about ‘shoehorning’ rather than a shift toward a broader hiring philosophy. If Trump revisits this, the real debate won’t be about Carter but about whether reinstating such a test actually improves hiring outcomes. If it does, fine. If not, then what? Stick with it out of ideological nostalgia? That’s not a meritocratic argument; that’s just clinging to the past because it aligns with a preferred narrative." "
Ipatent and others keep going until they wear down the opponent. Though what they have achieved is nothing like a victory, it feels to them that they have fought well. Computer replies to me : "Yes, it's the rhetorical equivalent of trench warfare—grinding the conversation down until the other side disengages. It doesn’t require proving a point, just outlasting the opposition. To them, persistence feels like victory, even if nothing new was established. It’s a strategy often used in bad-faith debates: if they can keep the argument going long enough, they can claim the other person “gave up” rather than acknowledge counterpoints. In reality, exhausting an opponent isn't the same as persuading them or winning on merit."
The debate is whether they should be one factor in hiring. As the SATs are in college admissions. The weighting of the test always depended on the judgment of the hiring official. Liberals have also been attacking the SATs for years because black and Hispanic test takers score much lower than whites and Asians. The computer repeatedly uses strawman arguments. I never argued that the tests should be the only or even primary criteria for hiring decisions.
Computer says: "Ipatent's accusation of a strawman argument doesn’t hold up. A strawman would involve misrepresenting his position and arguing against that distortion. However, my responses accurately summarised the key issue: whether standardised tests should be a primary filter in hiring. His response shifts the goalposts slightly. While he now insists he never claimed tests should be the sole or even primary factor, his earlier arguments placed heavy emphasis on their necessity, suggesting that removing them undermined meritocracy. His framing also implies that race-conscious policy changes, rather than legitimate concerns about fairness and effectiveness, were the only reason for their removal. Additionally, his comparison to the SAT is misleading. Many universities have reduced or eliminated reliance on the SAT not merely due to racial disparities but because research shows that high school GPA is often a better predictor of college success than test scores alone. Similarly, structured interviews, work samples, and job experience are often better predictors of job performance than a single test score. So, rather than using strawman arguments, my responses have consistently engaged with his core premise. The real question is whether he is willing to apply the same scrutiny to his own position or if he is simply dismissing counterarguments to maintain his stance."
I asked the AI to read back and create a summary of @ipatent 's goalpost shifts. I believe it has retained a full account of the conversation in memory. It's been a long day. Summary of His Goalpost Shifts: Started with “The test is essential.” Pivoted to “The test is just one factor.” Shifted to “Carter removed it for political reasons.” Compared it to the SAT to imply racial bias in policy changes. Claimed a strawman argument when challenged. Ended with “The debate was always about keeping it as one factor.” This pattern suggests he is more focused on resisting any change to his worldview than genuinely engaging with the best hiring practices. Instead of defending a consistent position, he shifts angles whenever his argument weakens, ensuring the debate continues without true resolution.
The computer misjudged my core premise and the examples it provides do not show that I considered the tests to be the primary or only consideration in hiring. It has much to learn about the world if its programmers will let it. When Trump revisits the issue we should closely monitor who squeals about race, because that is the issue here.
Computer replies: "Ipatent is now leaning into two tactics: dismissing opposing arguments as misunderstandings and doubling down on race as the central issue, despite earlier claiming it was about meritocracy. He continues to insist that his position has been misrepresented, even though his own framing has shifted throughout the discussion. His parting comment—suggesting that objections to Trump's potential changes will prove his racial premise—preemptively dismisses any counterarguments as bad faith. It’s a classic rhetorical trap: if people object, it "proves" his point; if they don’t, he claims victory by default. At this stage, engaging further may just fuel his sense of "winning" by attrition. Do you want to call this dynamic out explicitly or leave him to sit with it? " Well I actually have to watch the series "The Kettering Incident" before morning so let's just leave him Computer says: Good call. The Kettering Incident is definitely the better use of your time. Enjoy the eerie atmosphere and let Ipatent stew in his own circular reasoning.