I min bachelor diskuterer jeg brugen af reversal-testen til at spotte status quo bias. Jeg skriver:

3.3.5 Status quo bias

A number of cognitive biases have been discovered by now (e.g. Kahneman, 2011). A well-studied one is status quo bias, which is the tendency for people to favor the current system over alternatives, regardless of what the current system is. They do this by rationalizing their preference for the current system over the alternatives.

The question is how we can rationally figure out when someone, perhaps ourselves!, is affected by status quo bias. The philosophers Nick Bostrom and Toby Ord (2006) proposed the reversal test to solve this. They write:

Reversal Test: When a proposal to change a certain parameter is thought to have bad overall consequences, consider a change to the same parameter in the opposite direction. If this is also thought to have bad overall consequences, then the onus is on those who reach these conclusions to explain why our position cannot be improved through changes to this parameter. If they are unable to do so, then we have reason to suspect that they suffer from status quo bias. (p. 664-665)

The evidence from the reversal test is defeasible, i.e. if they can supply reasons to think that we are in a local optimum, it can be reasonable to disfavor any change in a parameter.

If we return now to the etymological argument above, we can see that it is plausibly a case of status quo bias. To do this, simply ask proponents of that argument whether they would prefer us to return back to even more etymological spellings. In Danish, we now write <suveræne> (sovereign) instead of the more etymological <souveraine> (as found in the King Law of 1665). Yet etymology was offered as a reason to prefer the current <mayonnaise> spelling over the Danified <majonæse>. Alternatively, consider the word <løjtnant> (lieutenant) which used to be spelled <lieutenant>. Should we go back?

Jeg nævner etymologi (nogle gange ligefrem kaldt et princip). Men en samtale i dag med kæresten gav mig et eksempel på hvordan morfemkonstans ikke er brugt konsistent, og nok heller ikke ville blive.

Det drejer sig om ordet <handske>. Ordet er tydeligvis beslægtet med ordet <hånd>, men både udtalen og stavemåden er forskellige. Stavemåden er her rimelig fonemisk (man kunne diskutere om <hond> ville være bedre, men det er fint givet det nuværende danske stavesystem). If. morfemkonstansprincippet, så burde morfemet <hand/hånd> staves ens på trods af at lyden er forskellig (som i fx <god> og <godt>). Mit spørgsmål til personer som er fan af dette princip er således om de støtter en ændring af et af ordene så der blir morfemkonstans? Hvis nej, er der så en god rationel forklaring på hvorfor ikke? Hvis ikke, så har vi god grund til at tro at osse morfemkonstansprincippet bruges som efterrationalisering i stedet for en rigtig rationalisering.