> 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

> 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.