本文探讨了现状偏见，这是一种认知偏差，人们倾向于维持现状，仅仅因为改变会导致不同。文章区分了理性选择和现状偏见，指出当改变现状在综合考量下是合理的，但人们仍倾向于维持现状时，才是现状偏见。为了克服这种偏见，有时需要忽略改变的成本，从而评估最优状态。文章通过一个假设的案例，探讨了无成本改变下的决策，并提出了一个关于性取向的思考实验，最终引出了对现状偏见的反思。

🤔 现状偏见是指人们倾向于维持当前状态，仅仅因为其他状态是不同的。这是一种认知偏差，与理性决策形成对比。

💡 要克服现状偏见，有时需要忽略改变的成本。识别最优状态后，再评估改变的成本是否高到足以维持现状。

🤔 在无改变成本的情况下，选择应仅基于哪个状态更好。例如，如果性取向是令人烦恼的，那么改变它可能是有利的。

💊 文章通过一个关于性取向的假设案例，探讨了在无成本改变下，人们是否会选择改变现状。例如，一个无性恋者是否会选择改变自己的性取向。

🧐 文章提出了一个问题，即在改变成本很小的情况下，人们是否应该采取行动。例如，服用药物来消除性欲。

Published on March 27, 2025 6:08 PM GMT

Status quo bias is a cognitive bias which makes a person prefer to maintain the current state of affairs simply because other states of affairs would be different. (Henceforth, I will use the abbreviation "SOA" for "state of affairs"). 

Suppose the costs of changing the current SOA are high enough to offset any advantage a different SOA may have over the current one. Suppose that, for this reason, somebody prefers to keep the current state of affairs. Their preference is, importantly, not an instance of status quo bias. Status quo bias occurs when it would be rational, all things considered, to change the current SOA, and yet a person prefers to keep it, simply because it is the current one. 

To overcome status quo bias, it can sometimes be useful to completely ignore the costs of making changes. Once we identify an optimal SOA, we can ask: are the costs of bringing about this SOA really so high as to justify maintaining the status quo? 

Now, if there are no costs to making changes, then the answer to

i) Should I bring about SOA1, given the current state of affairs SOA2?

ii) Should I bring about SOA2, given the current state of affairs SOA1?

should be the same, and should depend only on whether SOA2 is better than SOA1. 

With that in mind, suppose you are asexual. Would you take a pill to make you not asexual? If you are like me, your sexuality is a nuisance (and is sometimes worse than a nuisance). Personally, I would not take this pill. I wouldn't see any compelling reason to induce in myself the desire to have sex. Therefore, being asexual is not worse for me than being not asexual, and is probably better. Therefore, I should become asexual, unless the costs of becoming asexual are high enough as to justify remaining heterosexual (that might be true if, for instance, I was in a relationship). 

Does this argument work in your case? Amusingly, there are pills that effectively eliminate libido. For men, these are "anti-androgens." The cost of taking these pills seems pretty small. Am I rationally required to take them?

Discuss