Double Standard Test
Swap sides to reveal whether loyalty is changing your judgment
- Difficulty
- Starter
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 3
- Confidence
- 99%
The Double Standard Test is a role-swapping thought experiment for detecting motivated reasoning. Begin with a judgment that may be influenced by loyalty or preference. Hold the action constant but replace the person, group or desired conclusion with one you do not favor. Compare your instinctive responses. If the same conduct suddenly looks worse, or the same evidence weaker, you may be applying different standards. Check whether a relevant contextual difference justifies the gap; if not, revise the original judgment under one consistent rule. The test can compare political sides, your conduct with another person's, or evidence you want to believe with evidence you resist.
Origin
Galef presents the Double Standard Test as a thought experiment she uses to notice soldier mindset.
Core principles
- 01Equivalent conduct deserves equivalent standards
- 02Changing the actor can expose loyalty
- 03Detection should lead to correction
How to run it
- 1
Choose the judgment
Identify a case where you feel defensive or eager for one conclusion.
Pro tip Use immediate partisan reactions as cues.
Watch out Do not alter the conduct during the comparison.
- 2
Swap identity
Imagine the identical act performed by an opponent, stranger or friend.
Pro tip Keep all relevant facts constant.
Watch out An unfair comparison creates a false signal.
- 3
Normalize the standard
Compare reactions and apply one rule unless a relevant difference justifies the gap.
Pro tip Write both verdicts before explaining them.
Watch out A post hoc excuse can preserve the bias.
In the wild
When defending a politician on your side, imagine a politician from the other party did the exact same thing and compare whether you would condemn rather than defend the act.
→ The original conduct is reevaluated under a consistent rule.
Common mistakes
Changing more than the actor
Adding motives or consequences prevents a valid comparison.
Not correcting the verdict
Detection has little value unless one common standard follows.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best when loyalty or desired conclusions may be influencing judgment.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when the compared cases differ in a genuinely relevant way.
From the transcript
“imagine that a politician from the other party had done the exact same thing um what would your reaction have been”
“i call that an example of or that is an example of what i call the double standard test”
From the episode
Learn To Improve Your Decision Making - Julia Galef - #332
Julia Galef