5 ms·

People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with. I know it's not the point of research, but it would really be nic

by tabeth 9y ago

People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with. I know it's not the point of research, but it would really be nice if this stuff was more prescriptive (to the article's defense they do touch on this a bit in the end). Discipline and willpower and what not are great things, but for the average person simply creating an environment to which discipline is unnecessary is easier. Some more thoughts for anyone who's bored out there: ---------------------------------------------------- 1) Website usage: many people check websites religiously, just to see if anything is new. Most of the time nothing is new. A means to prevent the actual visiting of the website (which will lead to more wasted time) would be nice. Example, you refresh the page right now, perhaps there are some new comments, maybe there aren't. Either way, maybe it's only worth it if there are X amount of new comments. A way to prevent "pointless" checks would be nice. 2) Soft reminder: it's worth thinking about a potential way to get someone back on track without explicitly reminding them to do so. I'm not quite sure how would do this (redirect to a website that was being worked on, maximizing the window that was important) as figuring out important itself is difficult, but it's worth a thought. EDIT: grammar

teilo 9y ago
> People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with. What kind of means? Psychological means? Delayed gratification implies that the object of one's desire is not a staple of life. Therefore delayed gratification works to one's favor if they are limited by finances or time. This whole thing sounds like a water is wet argument to me.
- tabeth 9y ago
  > Delayed gratification implies that the object of one's desire is not a staple of life. I don't agree with this statement. > Therefore delayed gratification works to one's favor if they are limited by finances or time. It's not that difficult -- delaying gratification is about making a calculation about expected value and utility. Questions such as, will I get more if I delay are obviously considered. Other questions such as whether I want more, or whether or not I actually think I will get more are also considered.
throwaway613834 9y ago
> People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with. You're saying this after reading that researchers gave 5-year-olds marshmallows and told them they would get a second one if they waited for 15 mins instead of eating it? Because the kids who delayed their marshmallow gratification "are likely those who have the means to begin with"?
- tabeth 9y ago
  Indeed I am. Clearly there must be some factor that resulted in the difference in the ability to delay -- whatever that factor is called, it has to be the "means." Why should you wait 15 minutes to get another one instead of eating the one you have now? Imagine two kids, one with abundance and another with nothing. Intelligence and other temperamental traits aside, do you think there'd be any difference in their inclination to wait? I obviously can't say for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised. There are also other things that others have criticized about the experiment: 1. Desire for sweets -- maybe one doesn't like sweets 2. Preexisting hunger 3. The premise that 2 marshmallows are superior to 1. etc. I still think it was a good experiment, but it's hardly the end-all-be-all.
  - nrhk 9y ago
    Yea, kid's who grow up with food scarcity probably wouldn't believe they would even get the second marshmallow. These are the type of kids who hoard food even when it becomes completely unnecessary later in life due to their childhood experiences. I imagine a better way to control for this is to have separate groups for different socioeconomic classes.
    - ddxxdd 9y ago
      I've been listening to the audiobook "Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence" by Daniel Goleman, and in one of the chapters, he brought up this experiment, along with many others (I think there was an Australian experiment that followed about 16,000 kids throughout their life). He actually concluded that focus and discipline have far more explanatory power in predicting future success than race, class, socioeconomic factors, or any other variable.

by tabeth 9y ago

teilo 9y ago

> People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with. What kind of means? Psychological means? Delayed gratification implies that the object of one's desire is not a staple of life. Therefore delayed gratification works to one's favor if they are limited by finances or time. This whole thing sounds like a water is wet argument to me.

tabeth 9y ago
> Delayed gratification implies that the object of one's desire is not a staple of life. I don't agree with this statement. > Therefore delayed gratification works to one's favor if they are limited by finances or time. It's not that difficult -- delaying gratification is about making a calculation about expected value and utility. Questions such as, will I get more if I delay are obviously considered. Other questions such as whether I want more, or whether or not I actually think I will get more are also considered.

throwaway613834 9y ago

> People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with. You're saying this after reading that researchers gave 5-year-olds marshmallows and told them they would get a second one if they waited for 15 mins instead of eating it? Because the kids who delayed their marshmallow gratification "are likely those who have the means to begin with"?

tabeth 9y ago
Indeed I am. Clearly there must be some factor that resulted in the difference in the ability to delay -- whatever that factor is called, it has to be the "means." Why should you wait 15 minutes to get another one instead of eating the one you have now? Imagine two kids, one with abundance and another with nothing. Intelligence and other temperamental traits aside, do you think there'd be any difference in their inclination to wait? I obviously can't say for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised. There are also other things that others have criticized about the experiment: 1. Desire for sweets -- maybe one doesn't like sweets 2. Preexisting hunger 3. The premise that 2 marshmallows are superior to 1. etc. I still think it was a good experiment, but it's hardly the end-all-be-all.
- nrhk 9y ago
  Yea, kid's who grow up with food scarcity probably wouldn't believe they would even get the second marshmallow. These are the type of kids who hoard food even when it becomes completely unnecessary later in life due to their childhood experiences. I imagine a better way to control for this is to have separate groups for different socioeconomic classes.
  - ddxxdd 9y ago
    I've been listening to the audiobook "Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence" by Daniel Goleman, and in one of the chapters, he brought up this experiment, along with many others (I think there was an Australian experiment that followed about 16,000 kids throughout their life). He actually concluded that focus and discipline have far more explanatory power in predicting future success than race, class, socioeconomic factors, or any other variable.