Retrospective Dynamic Inconsistency

Or "The Present Bias"

(I'm using these terms a little liberally until I can come up with a better name for this phenomenon.)

The idea is very simple: people bias the present.  Netflix shows us this very clearly...

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/10/27/procrastination/ 

But the bias extends its reach much further, even to the point of being considered dangerous.  This is especially so when the bias is against the past, not the future.  And this happens all the time.

You have probably noticed this.  For example, when a new version of software, device or even a car is released, we automatically assume it is better.  Only if there is solid evidence to the contrary do we change our view.   

But that's not really dangerous, is it?  The danger is when this is applied to theories, or even our very mode of viewing life.

How?

As a society, we tend to be slow to accept new models of our universe.  Just look at the initial backlash against the heliocentric model.  But once that model has taken hold, we laugh at the old views.  "How could anyone have believed that?" we quip.

In other words, we bias the present view.  Of course, the heliocentric view is the correct one, so what's the problem?

The problem is that new is not always better.  Here is what can happen:

1) A new view arises 
2) Even if it not a complete theory, it takes hold for some reason (we won't get into those reasons right now)
3) It becomes the de facto standard view
4) But there are still missing (or broken) pieces of the view, which are now ignored because it has become the present view
5) We only ever hear of those missing or broken "subviews" when they themselves have been replaced by a more modern subview

For example, let's take Evolution.  It has become the dominant theory today.  Of course, it has plenty of holes, but the only time we hear of one of them is when it has supposedly been filled.  It goes something like this: "For a long time it didn't seem possible that [insert something here], but now we know better!"  Or: "There was a fatal problem with [whatever], but today we have a new theory about it!"  Errors only exist in the past.  What we now believe is perfect.   

In other words, problems with the present, dominant view are ignored because it is the present, dominant view.  Or maybe they are not ignored entirely, but somehow the evidence is made to fit the view.  As they say, "all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm."  That is exactly the kind of thinking we are talking about. 

So what's the point?  It is easy to bias the present.  But like all biases, it can lead us to wrong conclusions.  We can't let it.