Reversal test

Bostrom & Ord showed that subjects applying what they dub a "reversal test" eliminates status quo bias in applied ethics (Bostrom & Ord 2006).

The test has to do with when you're discussing a continuous parameter such as lifespan and want to avoid misjudging the ideal value of that parameter, i.e. "what's the ideal human lifespan?", or "how much ought people to receive in financial support?", or "how many gigabytes of storage do I need?", or "how many days should our bicycle trip last?"

For example, if it became possible to increase the human lifespan, some would argue that it would be undesirable for people to live longer because, say, overpopulation would be difficult to manage. The reversal test is then to check that the same people accept that shorter lifespan is desirable […]

If reversal makes your argument appear absurd, your own values hold that it was absurd the other direction too, so you'd better drop it like a hot potato.

I see this as another facet of the general art of trying to disprove everything you hear (Attempt to falsify) at least once, just to see if it makes you think different about the topic.

I want to use the term "reversal test" for a wider category of techniques, including

  • when judging an ideal quantity: simply checking that "if less is worse, more is better" holds. If a bit more is worse, a bit less is better, and if a lot more is worse, a lot less is better (it's extremely unlikely X is at the ideal level, and it seems to me a good starting point if you resist adding Y to X, checking that it would be good to subtract the same quantity Y from the current value of X).
  • disprove everything you hear
  • reversing all advice you hear (Try reversing the advice you hear)
  • reversing all new facts you hear (How to feel shocked enough?)
  • "consider the opposite" (How to debias?) (i.e.: when you make a decision or draw a conclusion, think at least once how it might be completely wrong)

What links here

Created (2 years ago)