我们在多大程度上低估了过去的快乐?

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Preston Greene, A. Latham, Kristie Miller, James Norton
{"title":"我们在多大程度上低估了过去的快乐?","authors":"Preston Greene, A. Latham, Kristie Miller, James Norton","doi":"10.5406/21521123.59.4.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Future-biased individuals systematically prefer pleasures to be in the future (positive future-bias) and pains to be in the past (negative future-bias). Empirical research shows that negative future-bias is robust: people prefer more past pain to less future pain. Is positive future-bias robust or fragile? Do people only prefer pleasures to be located in the future, compared to the past, when those pleasures are of equal value (fragile positive future-bias), or do they continue to prefer that pleasures be located in the future even when past pleasures outweigh future ones (robust positive future-bias)? Some arguments against the rationality of future-bias require positive future-bias to be robust, while others require it to be fragile. We empirically investigate and show that positive future-bias is robust.","PeriodicalId":47459,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Much Do We Discount Past Pleasures?\",\"authors\":\"Preston Greene, A. Latham, Kristie Miller, James Norton\",\"doi\":\"10.5406/21521123.59.4.03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Future-biased individuals systematically prefer pleasures to be in the future (positive future-bias) and pains to be in the past (negative future-bias). Empirical research shows that negative future-bias is robust: people prefer more past pain to less future pain. Is positive future-bias robust or fragile? Do people only prefer pleasures to be located in the future, compared to the past, when those pleasures are of equal value (fragile positive future-bias), or do they continue to prefer that pleasures be located in the future even when past pleasures outweigh future ones (robust positive future-bias)? Some arguments against the rationality of future-bias require positive future-bias to be robust, while others require it to be fragile. We empirically investigate and show that positive future-bias is robust.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5406/21521123.59.4.03\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/21521123.59.4.03","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

有未来偏见的人系统地喜欢快乐而不喜欢未来(积极的未来偏见),喜欢痛苦而不喜欢过去(消极的将来偏见)。实证研究表明,消极的未来偏见是强烈的:人们更喜欢过去的痛苦,而不是未来的痛苦。积极的未来偏见是稳健的还是脆弱的?与过去相比,当这些快乐具有同等价值时(脆弱的积极未来偏见),人们是否只喜欢将快乐放在未来?或者,即使过去的快乐超过未来的快乐,他们是否仍然喜欢将快乐置于未来?一些反对未来偏见合理性的论点要求积极的未来偏见是稳健的,而另一些则要求它是脆弱的。我们的实证研究表明,积极的未来偏见是稳健的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Much Do We Discount Past Pleasures?
Future-biased individuals systematically prefer pleasures to be in the future (positive future-bias) and pains to be in the past (negative future-bias). Empirical research shows that negative future-bias is robust: people prefer more past pain to less future pain. Is positive future-bias robust or fragile? Do people only prefer pleasures to be located in the future, compared to the past, when those pleasures are of equal value (fragile positive future-bias), or do they continue to prefer that pleasures be located in the future even when past pleasures outweigh future ones (robust positive future-bias)? Some arguments against the rationality of future-bias require positive future-bias to be robust, while others require it to be fragile. We empirically investigate and show that positive future-bias is robust.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Since its inauguration in 1964, the American Philosophical Quarterly (APQ) has established itself as one of the principal English vehicles for the publication of scholarly work in philosophy. The whole of each issue—printed in a large-page, double-column format—is given to substantial articles; from time to time there are also "state of the art" surveys of recent work on particular topics. The editorial policy is to publish work of high quality, regardless of the school of thought from which it derives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信