I think they are basically not a bias in the way confirmation bias is, and anyone claiming otherwise is pre-supposing linear aggregation of welfare already. From a thing I wrote recently:
Scope neglect is not a cognitive bias like confirmation bias. I can want there to be ≥80 birds saved, but be indifferent about larger numbers: this does not violate the von Neumann-Morgenstern axioms (nor any other axiomatic systems that underlie alternatives to utility theory that I know of). Similarly, I can most highly value there being exactly 3 flowers in the vase on the table (less being too sparse, and more being too busy). The pebble-sorters of course go the extra mile.
Calling scope neglect a bias pre-supposes that we ought to value certain things linearly (or at least monotonically). This does not follow from any mathematics I know of. Instead it tries to sneak in utilitarian assumptions by calling their violation “biased”.
Anything is VNM-consistent if your utility function is allowed to take universe-histories or sequences of actions. So you will have to make some assumptions.
I think they are basically not a bias in the way confirmation bias is, and anyone claiming otherwise is pre-supposing linear aggregation of welfare already. From a thing I wrote recently:
Anything is VNM-consistent if your utility function is allowed to take universe-histories or sequences of actions. So you will have to make some assumptions.