Wen Yu

Evidence shows that people have multiple time-biases. One is near-bias, another is future-bias, and a third is present-bias. Philosophers have argued that, in part, the normative status of these biases depends on the extent to which they tend to promote, or frustrate, wellbeing, where “wellbeing” is taken to be of fundamental value. Since near-bias is thought to be associated with impulsivity, lack of self-control, and poor long-term health and financial outcomes, it has often been supposed that it is associated with lower wellbeing and is therefore rationally impermissible. By contrast, philosophical views about the normative status of future-bias have been mixed, with some arguing that future-bias is impermissible because it frustrates wellbeing, and others arguing that it is at least permissible (and perhaps obligatory) because it is the product of mechanisms whose functioning can be expected to promote wellbeing. However, to date, there are no studies that directly probe how time-biases correlate with wellbeing. We empirically investigate which biases promote or frustrate wellbeing. We find no evidence that near-bias or present-bias frustrate wellbeing, but future-bias is associated with higher measures of wellbeing on several measures.

This paper empirically probes people’s judgements about whether future-bias and the temporal value asymmetry (TVA for short) are rationally permissible, obligatory, or impermissible. While philosophers are divided about the normative status of these attitudes/preferences, they have typically agreed that non-philosophers will judge that future-bias is at least permissible, and probably obligatory, and will judge that TVA is not permissible. If this is right, it is important for two reasons. First, many researchers have argued that future-bias is a manifestation of TVA. If, however, people make different normative judgements about the two phenomena this tends to undermine this idea. Second, if it is true, it impacts theorising about the normative status of these phenomena: the assumption that future-bias is rational currently guides theorising, in that defenders of the rationality of future-bias tend to argue that its rationality is obvious, and hence must be accommodated, while opponents tend to try to show why, despite not being rational, future-bias appears to us to be rational. Yet no empirical work has been undertaken to test these assumptions about people’s judgements. In the first work of this kind, we confirmed that most people judge future-bias to be rationally obligatory, and TVA to be rationally impermissible.

There are two kinds of time bias: near bias and future bias. While philosophers typically hold that near bias is rationally impermissible, many hold that future bias is rationally permissible. Call this normative hybridism. According to arbitrariness objections, certain patterns of preference are rationally impermissible because they are arbitrary. While arbitrariness objections have been leveled against both near bias and future bias, the kind of arbitrariness in question has been different. In this article we investigate whether there are forms of arbitrariness that are common to both kinds of preferences and, hence, whether there are versions of the arbitrariness objection that are objections to both near bias and future bias. If there are, then this might go some way toward undermining normative hybridism and to defending thoroughgoing time-neutralism.

Empirical evidence suggests that one explanation for a certain sort of time-bias—near-bias—is diminution in self-connectedness between current person-stages and temporally farther future stages. In this paper we extend this research in two directions. First, we explore the association between self-connectedness towards past person-stages and retrospective near-bias, with the aim of determining whether we can explain retrospective near-bias in terms of diminished feelings of connectedness between current person-stages and temporally farther past stages. Second, we explore the association between future-bias and asymmetries in self-connectedness with future stages as compared with equidistant past stages. If current stages feel more connected to future stages than equidistant past ones, then this asymmetry could explain our bias towards future over past person-stages. We aim to determine whether this is so, in part as a way to try and better understand the mechanisms that underlie time-biases, but also in order to better evaluate the normative status of these preferences. That is because on many views, the strength of certain inter-stage connections grounds there being an egoistic concern relation obtaining between stages, whose strength, in turn, determines whether that stage has prudential reason to have (or not) time-biased preferences. Since self-connectedness may be evidence of, or partly constitutive of, such inter-stage connections, it may be that if asymmetries in, or diminution of, self-connectedness, explains time-biased preferences, it also normatively licenses those preferences.

This paper empirically probes people’s judgements about whether future-bias and the temporal value asymmetry (TVA for short) are rationally permissible, obligatory, or impermissible. While philosophers are divided about the normative status of these attitudes/preferences, they have typically agreed that non-philosophers will judge that future-bias is at least permissible, and probably obligatory, and will judge that TVA is not permissible. If this is right, it is important for two reasons. First, many researchers have argued that future-bias is a manifestation of TVA. If, however, people make different normative judgements about the two phenomena this tends to undermine this idea. Second, if it is true, it impacts theorising about the normative status of these phenomena: The assumption that future-bias is rational currently guides theorising, in that defenders of the rationality of future-bias tend to argue that its rationality is obvious, and hence must be accommodated, while opponents tend to try to show why, despite not being rational, future-bias appears to us to be rational. Yet no empirical work has been undertaken to test these assumptions about people’s judgements. In the first work of this kind, we confirmed that most people judge future-bias to be rationally obligatory, and TVA to be rationally impermissible.

We are future-biased creatures. We prefer pleasure to be future rather than past, and pain to be past rather than future. Whether future-bias is rational has long been a matter of philosophical contention. A recent paper by Phillips (Citation2021, “Why Future-Bias Isn't Rationally Evaluable.” Res Philosophica 98 (4): 573–596), however, argues that much of the debate rests on a false presumption. Given an ‘adequate representation’ constraint on rational evaluability, as the argument goes, there cannot be rationally evaluable future-bias. But the argument rests on a confusion about the temporal perspectives in representation. There is no principled obstacle to adequately representing future-bias and thereby subjecting future-bias to rational evaluation.

Empirical evidence shows that people have multiple time-biases. One is near-bias, another is future-bias, and a third is present-bias. Philosophers are concerned with the normative status of these time-biases. They have argued that, at least in part, the normative status of these biases depends on the extent to which they tend to promote, or frustrate, wellbeing, where “wellbeing” is taken to be of fundamental value. Since near-bias is thought to be associated with impulsivity, lack of self-control, and poor long-term health and financial outcomes, it has often been supposed that it is associated with lower wellbeing. On those grounds, philosophers have argued that near-bias is rationally impermissible. By contrast, philosophical views about the normative status of future-bias have been mixed, with some arguing that future-bias is impermissible because, they think, it frustrates wellbeing, and others arguing that it is at least permissible (and perhaps obligatory) because it is the product of mechanisms whose functioning can be expected to promote wellbeing. However, to date there are no studies that have directly probed how time-biases correlate with wellbeing. Since it's not a settled matter which psychological mechanisms underlie time-biases, it is not uncontroversial which things serve as proxies for these preferences. We directly empirically investigate the connection between time-biases and measures of wellbeing, to see which of these biases is associated with promoting, or frustrating wellbeing. Contrary to expectation, we found no evidence that near-bias or present-bias are associated with frustrating wellbeing on any of the constructs we measured. On the other hand, and contrary to what some philosophers have supposed, we found that future-bias was associated with higher measures of wellbeing on several measures. We consider the implications of these findings for the evaluation of the normative status of these time biases.

Many philosophers have become sceptical of the use of thought experiments in theorising about personal identity. In large part, this is due to work in experimental philosophy that appears to confirm long‐held philosophical suspicions that thought experiments elicit inconsistent judgements about personal identity and hence judgements that are thought to be the product of cognitive biases. If so, these judgements appear to be useless at informing our theories of personal identity. Using the methods of experimental philosophy, we investigate whether people exhibit inconsistent judgements and, if they do, whether these judgements are likely to be the source of cognitive bias or, instead, sensitivity to some relevant factor. We do not find that people's judgements are sensitive to any of the factors we investigate (relevant or irrelevant), nor that people have inconsistent judgements across cases. Rather, people's judgements are best explained by them having a very minimal account of what it takes for a person to survive. Since this pattern of judgements is no reason to think that we are subject to cognitive bias, we see no reason, as things stand, to be sceptical of our judgements.