Apply the double-standard check: would I accept this reasoning if it pointed the other way?

Test whether you are holding your team’s arguments to a lower bar than the other side’s.

Why it works

Motivated reasoning operates asymmetrically: we scrutinize evidence against our views and wave through evidence for them. The double-standard check makes the asymmetry visible by asking a simple question: "If someone I disagreed with made this exact argument for the opposite conclusion, how would I rate it?" The gap between those ratings is a measure of how much motivated reasoning is operating.

How to do it

1. Take an argument you find compelling and mentally swap the conclusion to the opposite.
2. Evaluate that swapped version with the same rigor you gave the original.
3. If the swapped version seems obviously weak, identify what changed — usually it’s your prior, not the logic.

Evidence

Asymmetric scrutiny of supporting vs. disconfirming evidence is a well-replicated finding in political psychology and judgment research. Prompting participants to apply consistent standards reduces the bias in experimental settings. (observational)

Lab-demonstrated debiasing instructions do not always transfer to high-stakes, emotionally loaded real-world reasoning where motivation to protect the prior is stronger.

Sources

• Lord, Ross & Lepper (1979), biased assimilation of mixed evidence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Common mistake

Performing the swap but subconsciously adjusting the hypothetical scenario so that you would still end up agreeing — the swap must be structural, not cosmetic.