2 ms·

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 "mean

by 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.
throwaway613834 9y ago
> Intelligence and other temperamental traits aside, You can't just conveniently "leave these side" for no apparent reason when they could easily explain the effect that you're trying to explain otherwise. > do you think there'd be any difference in their inclination to wait? Not in favor of your argument. If you were in poverty and could get an extra marshmallow in this situation by simply waiting 15 minutes, wouldn't you be more likely to wait? Heck, make it more tangible: if someone offered you $100 now or $200 in 15 mins, wouldn't you be more likely to wait if you had nothing vs. if you were already well-off? Unless you think the subjects here thought the whole experiment was some kind of taunting prank, I don't see how you think your explanation is likely.
- tabeth 9y ago
  You're focusing too much on the amount of time, but fine. I'm going to assume you're 30. 15 minutes for a 5 years old is at least 90 minutes for a 30 year old. Would you wait an hour and a half for a marshmallow? I'm gonna say no. --- > You can't just conveniently "leave these side" for no apparent reason when they could easily explain the effect that you're trying to explain otherwise. These weren't tested variables. They're just as likely to be relevant as they are irrelevant without any data to back it up either way. > Not in favor of your argument. If you were in poverty and could get an extra marshmallow in this situation by simply waiting 15 minutes, wouldn't you be more likely to wait? Heck, make it more tangible: if someone offered you $100 now or $200 in 15 mins, wouldn't you be more likely to wait if you had nothing vs. if you were already well-off? Again, life experience can affect things. OK let's take your example. Let's say you're typically lied to for whatever reason. So in your example, you can get a guaranteed $100, or a 75% change of getting $200 in 15 minutes. How does that change behavior? Which brings me to my last point: you say you'd be more likely to wait if you had nothing, but I disagree. If I had nothing I would definitely take what's guaranteed as opposed to what may be.
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    > You're focusing too much on the amount of time, but fine. I'm going to assume you're 30. 15 minutes for a 5 years old is at least 90 minutes for a 30 year old. Would you wait an hour and a half for a marshmallow? I'm gonna say no. You're really going to say all this while pretending a marshmallow is the same thing to a 5-year-old as it is to a 30-year-old? > These weren't tested variables. Sure, I agree they should be tested. > They're just as likely to be relevant No. I think this is what we're disagreeing on. > Again, life experience can affect things. OK let's take your example. Let's say you're typically lied to for whatever reason. So in your example, you can get a guaranteed $100, or a 75% change of getting $200 in 15 minutes. How does that change behavior? Sure, if you're lied to you would be more likely to choose the bird in the hand rather than two in the bush. And I also don't see how this is relevant unless for some reason you think being poor correlates strongly with being constantly lied to.
    - 9y ago

by tabeth 9y ago

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.

throwaway613834 9y ago

> Intelligence and other temperamental traits aside, You can't just conveniently "leave these side" for no apparent reason when they could easily explain the effect that you're trying to explain otherwise. > do you think there'd be any difference in their inclination to wait? Not in favor of your argument. If you were in poverty and could get an extra marshmallow in this situation by simply waiting 15 minutes, wouldn't you be more likely to wait? Heck, make it more tangible: if someone offered you $100 now or $200 in 15 mins, wouldn't you be more likely to wait if you had nothing vs. if you were already well-off? Unless you think the subjects here thought the whole experiment was some kind of taunting prank, I don't see how you think your explanation is likely.

tabeth 9y ago
You're focusing too much on the amount of time, but fine. I'm going to assume you're 30. 15 minutes for a 5 years old is at least 90 minutes for a 30 year old. Would you wait an hour and a half for a marshmallow? I'm gonna say no. --- > You can't just conveniently "leave these side" for no apparent reason when they could easily explain the effect that you're trying to explain otherwise. These weren't tested variables. They're just as likely to be relevant as they are irrelevant without any data to back it up either way. > Not in favor of your argument. If you were in poverty and could get an extra marshmallow in this situation by simply waiting 15 minutes, wouldn't you be more likely to wait? Heck, make it more tangible: if someone offered you $100 now or $200 in 15 mins, wouldn't you be more likely to wait if you had nothing vs. if you were already well-off? Again, life experience can affect things. OK let's take your example. Let's say you're typically lied to for whatever reason. So in your example, you can get a guaranteed $100, or a 75% change of getting $200 in 15 minutes. How does that change behavior? Which brings me to my last point: you say you'd be more likely to wait if you had nothing, but I disagree. If I had nothing I would definitely take what's guaranteed as opposed to what may be.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  > You're focusing too much on the amount of time, but fine. I'm going to assume you're 30. 15 minutes for a 5 years old is at least 90 minutes for a 30 year old. Would you wait an hour and a half for a marshmallow? I'm gonna say no. You're really going to say all this while pretending a marshmallow is the same thing to a 5-year-old as it is to a 30-year-old? > These weren't tested variables. Sure, I agree they should be tested. > They're just as likely to be relevant No. I think this is what we're disagreeing on. > Again, life experience can affect things. OK let's take your example. Let's say you're typically lied to for whatever reason. So in your example, you can get a guaranteed $100, or a 75% change of getting $200 in 15 minutes. How does that change behavior? Sure, if you're lied to you would be more likely to choose the bird in the hand rather than two in the bush. And I also don't see how this is relevant unless for some reason you think being poor correlates strongly with being constantly lied to.
  - 9y ago