2 ms·

> 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? That... wasn't really the poi

by tabeth 9y ago

> 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? That... wasn't really the point. OK, replace it with coffee -- do you think an adult would wait 90 minutes for a second coffee they may or may not want when they can already get one instantly? > 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. You don't why a poor person would be skeptical of the scenario you posed? If you live in an area with homeless people I challenge you to find one of them and do your experiment with $5 and $10 dollars, with 0 and 90 minutes respectively. I guarantee you the homeless person will take the $5. Anyway, I'm not really sure what we're discussing at this point. My original statement, "People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with", is obviously true. Either that or you believe there's no factor that results in certain individuals being able to better delay gratification (whether that's cultural, genetic, or circumstantial). Clearly there must be some factor that's resulting in people being able to delay their gratification to begin with and therefore "have the means to do so to begin with."

throwaway613834 9y ago
> That... wasn't really the point. The 15 minutes wasn't really my point either, but you assumed it was and I went along. > OK, replace it with coffee -- do you think an adult would wait 90 minutes for a second coffee they may or may not want when they can already get one instantly? I see people ordering 1 cup of coffee all the time and being satisfied that it's enough. When was the last time you saw someone being satisfied after eating 1 marshmallow?! > You don't why a poor person would be skeptical of the scenario you posed? No?? > If you live in an area with homeless people I challenge you to find one of them and do your experiment with $5 and $10 dollars, with 0 and 90 minutes respectively. I guarantee you the homeless person will take the $5. Of course he would. And I challenge you to do the same thing with non-homeless people in your neighborhood. I bet they would react exactly the same way. Because a random nobody suddenly appearing out of the blue and offering you money in 90 minutes sounds like a prank or a scam. And because non-homeless people will also have (in fact, are more likely to have) more productive things to do in those 90 minutes than waste brainpower on whether/when/how you're planning to give them those $5. If this is how you're going to design counter-experiments you really don't seem to be in a position to criticize these experiments. > Anyway, I'm not really sure what we're discussing at this point. My original statement, "People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with", is obviously true. Yes, it's probably true, but also irrelevant to the point that the research is trying to make, which is that training yourself to delay gratification seems to pay off to your own benefit.
- tabeth 9y ago
  > Yes, it's probably true, but also irrelevant to the point that the research is trying to make, which is that training yourself to delay gratification seems to pay off to your own benefit. Oh, that was your point -- I complete agree then! Seems like we talked past each other a bit (or at least I to you). Apologies :D. > Of course he would. And I challenge you to do the same thing with non-homeless people in your neighborhood. I bet they would react exactly the same way. Because a random nobody suddenly appearing out of the blue and offering you money in 90 minutes sounds like a prank or a scam. And because non-homeless people will also have (in fact, are more likely to have) more productive things to do in those 90 minutes than waste brainpower on whether/when/how you're planning to give them those $5. If this is how you're going to design counter-experiments you really don't seem to be in a position to criticize these experiments. Most of the things you said here can also be applied to the children in the original experiment fwiw. > I see people ordering 1 cup of coffee all the time and being satisfied that it's enough. When was the last time you saw someone being satisfied after eating 1 marshmallow?! Indeed, which was my point. Without knowing how much the kids want a marshmallow/marginal utility of it, the marshmallow itself as an incentive is dubious, at best. Despite this I still think the experiment was solid.

by tabeth 9y ago

throwaway613834 9y ago

> That... wasn't really the point. The 15 minutes wasn't really my point either, but you assumed it was and I went along. > OK, replace it with coffee -- do you think an adult would wait 90 minutes for a second coffee they may or may not want when they can already get one instantly? I see people ordering 1 cup of coffee all the time and being satisfied that it's enough. When was the last time you saw someone being satisfied after eating 1 marshmallow?! > You don't why a poor person would be skeptical of the scenario you posed? No?? > If you live in an area with homeless people I challenge you to find one of them and do your experiment with $5 and $10 dollars, with 0 and 90 minutes respectively. I guarantee you the homeless person will take the $5. Of course he would. And I challenge you to do the same thing with non-homeless people in your neighborhood. I bet they would react exactly the same way. Because a random nobody suddenly appearing out of the blue and offering you money in 90 minutes sounds like a prank or a scam. And because non-homeless people will also have (in fact, are more likely to have) more productive things to do in those 90 minutes than waste brainpower on whether/when/how you're planning to give them those $5. If this is how you're going to design counter-experiments you really don't seem to be in a position to criticize these experiments. > Anyway, I'm not really sure what we're discussing at this point. My original statement, "People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with", is obviously true. Yes, it's probably true, but also irrelevant to the point that the research is trying to make, which is that training yourself to delay gratification seems to pay off to your own benefit.

tabeth 9y ago
> Yes, it's probably true, but also irrelevant to the point that the research is trying to make, which is that training yourself to delay gratification seems to pay off to your own benefit. Oh, that was your point -- I complete agree then! Seems like we talked past each other a bit (or at least I to you). Apologies :D. > Of course he would. And I challenge you to do the same thing with non-homeless people in your neighborhood. I bet they would react exactly the same way. Because a random nobody suddenly appearing out of the blue and offering you money in 90 minutes sounds like a prank or a scam. And because non-homeless people will also have (in fact, are more likely to have) more productive things to do in those 90 minutes than waste brainpower on whether/when/how you're planning to give them those $5. If this is how you're going to design counter-experiments you really don't seem to be in a position to criticize these experiments. Most of the things you said here can also be applied to the children in the original experiment fwiw. > I see people ordering 1 cup of coffee all the time and being satisfied that it's enough. When was the last time you saw someone being satisfied after eating 1 marshmallow?! Indeed, which was my point. Without knowing how much the kids want a marshmallow/marginal utility of it, the marshmallow itself as an incentive is dubious, at best. Despite this I still think the experiment was solid.