5 ms·

I found the following post [1] to make a very compelling argument that the Marshmallow test isn't really testing for the ability to defer gratification, but for

I found the following post [1] to make a very compelling argument that the Marshmallow test isn't really testing for the ability to defer gratification, but for a "generalised ability/desire to take and pass tests" (manifesting itself here as the desire to pass the Marshmallow test). The post argues that this is an underrecognised character trait which can predict success in today's Western test-oriented world. Certainly I personally possess this trait in spades, and my personal history is full of instances where this trait was extremely useful to me. Assuming the trait is either heritable or culturally imbued (and intuitively it seems very likely that at least one of those is true), it makes sense that rich parents are more likely to have children who are either natively or culturally high in The Desire To Pass Tests: indeed, our society heavily rewards people who have TDTPT, so rich parents are more likely to be high in TDTPT and therefore are more likely to have genetically or culturally passed it to their children. [1]: https://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/113360634364/the-stanford-marshmallow-prison-experiment https://hotelconcierge.tumblr.com/post/113360634364/the-stan...

thaumasiotes 8y ago
> Certainly I personally possess this trait in spades, and my personal history is full of instances where this trait was extremely useful to me. I love taking tests. Sadly, this has essentially never been any use.
- Smaug123 8y ago
  Two immediate ways spring to mind, but it's a fundamental feature of my nature and I feel its influence in many of the things I do. * Liking (and therefore being good at) taking tests was useful in getting me into Cambridge, for example, and then in doing well at Cambridge. * I can feel The Desire To Pass Tests unfolding within me during interviews, like Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres's dark side, and it definitely helps: my Test-Taker enjoys interviews, however scared I might be of them, so I just let the Test-Taker take the interview instead of me.
  - jakobegger 8y ago
    I absolutely hated taking tests (despite being good at it), and it's the reason why I dropped out of grad school and started a business. Everything in academia seemed to be a never ending series of tests: first literal tests and exams, later talk proposals and article submissions and applications for scholarships or grants... Academia seemed like one test after another, with no end in sight. At some point I just couldn't stand the feeling of other people judging me any more. I really liked university, I liked all those smart people, the work seemed interesting, but I just didn't want to be tested any more. Being self-employed means I no longer need to take tests. (I probably couldn't start a "startup" either, since applying for investments would be like taking a test as well)
- ACow_Adonis 8y ago
  I, on the other hand, am completely devoid of any desire to take or pass tests or perform for grader's/test takers, yet subjectively, I'd rate myself out to the right on the delayed gratification ability. The first created/creates significant problems in engaging with formal schooling: when I was younger I began simply not turning up to class or participating in assessment. It created the awkward situation where I did do a national standardised test one day and topped the year group for maths, but received a failing grade for maths class. In uni, the pattern essentially repeated itself. I (correctly) percieved the test taking and assessment as pedagogically irrelevant, and deviated from the course curriculums where my interests and own study took me. Delayed gratification however IS an important skill. One that, almost mathematically by definition, must give an advantage since it has an absolute advantage over the alternative. A person capable of delayed gratification has a greater range of possible options and strategies to achieve their goals, and can always opt for immediate gratification where it is appropriate, whereas a person incapable of delayed gratification can partake in no such choice. If empirical attempts to measure the effect of delayed gratification show no advantage therefore (assuming successful experiment design), there's actually another troubling possibility: society is (now) basing the distribution rewards and outcomes on those behaviours that are not determined by delayed gratification.
skookumchuck 8y ago
Do you feel that testing is irrelevant to mastery of a subject? That testing does not test for useful skills?
- Smaug123 8y ago
  That's too absolute a statement. If you're really good at a subject but terrible at taking tests, you can still do really well in a test by pure brute ability. But one of the money quotes from the blog post is: > When my friends said I was a “genius,” I would sort-of-joke that I didn’t know anything but could score 75% on any test with a Scantron. Test-taking is an ability that you can train (and, like any ability, some people enjoy exercising it and some do not), which in a select few situations can substitute for mastery of many other skills. Those select few situations also happen to be pretty common in the Western world.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    When I was in school I used to joke that my greatest aptitude was for taking multiple-choice tests. I can do well on almost any multiple choice tests by using elimination and observations about the system of the test writer.
- scns 8y ago
  You need to selftest your knowledge to master a subject
vanderZwan 8y ago
Not to be snarky, but a comment like this makes it look like you did not bother to read the submitted article, as it states: > This new paper found that among kids whose mothers had a college degree, those who waited for a second marshmallow did no better in the long run—in terms of standardized test scores and mothers’ reports of their children’s behavior—than those who dug right in. Similarly, among kids whose mothers did not have college degrees, those who waited did no better than those who gave in to temptation, once other factors like household income and the child’s home environment at age 3 (evaluated according to a standard research measure that notes, for instance, the number of books that researchers observed in the home and how responsive mothers were to their children in the researchers’ presence) were taken into account. For those kids, self-control alone couldn’t overcome economic and social disadvantages.
- chronial 8y ago
  Please refer to the hn guidelines (linked in the footer) > Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." Regarding the content of your post: I don't see how that quote relates at all to the parent. They were talking about how "desire/ability to pass a test" is an interesting variable in these scenarios – something that's not mentioned in the article at all.
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    It's directly related. His quote says that students who did well on the marshmallow test didn't do better on standardised tests. So it's unlikely they are just better test-takers.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - vanderZwan 8y ago
    GPs explanation is nothing more than a hypothesis as to why the Marshmallow test would be predictive of later performance: > The post argues that [a "generalised ability/desire to take and pass tests"] is an underrecognised character trait which can predict success in today's Western test-oriented world. In other words: it follows the assumption that being good at the Marshmallow test represents inherent character traits that are predictive of later performance. Except that the whole point of the article is debunking this notion, and the paragraph that I quote highlights this in particular. The new paper shows that this is not the case. The Marshmallow test still is predictive, but that seems to be because being able to take it correlates with having affluent backgrounds, not with it representing an inherent character trait that predicts anything.
jasode 8y ago
>, but for a "generalised ability/desire to take and pass tests [...] the desire to pass the Marshmallow test). [...] You and the blog you linked are getting sidetracked by the word "test" in "Marshmallow Test". You're thinking of academic/schooling connotations of "test" instead of the scientific observations of a "test". I'd suggest to rewrite the "Marshmallow Test" in the brain as "Marshmallow Experiment". It is the observation of an experiment. The children ages 4 to 6 in the original Stanford experiments were not aware they were "taking a test" for a "correct" answer. There is no correct answer. It's a setup for choices taken by children. Choosing 1 marshmallow instead of waiting 15 minutes for 2 is not a "wrong" answer. The choices are collected as observations and researchers try to find correlations. In this way, the "Marshmallow Test" is more like "Pepsi/Coke taste test" instead of "SAT tests". The Marshmallow experiment may be flawed and the correlations may be also be dubious but dismissing it because children are trying to "pass tests" is misinterpreting it.
- Smaug123 8y ago
  But the Marshmallow Test is a test! The child is told not to eat the marshmallow (maybe not in so many words), so there's an obvious correct answer to the test ("don't eat the marshmallow"), and some people are motivated to take that answer because they are motivated to do well when they are being tested. My own history is full of this kind of incident. EDIT: to clarify, the Marshmallow Test is a test when viewed by someone who is always on the lookout for tests, like me and like some other children. Many children, I'm sure, would not view it as a test, and might correspondingly not pass it.
  - jasode 8y ago
    >But the Marshmallow Test is a test! >, so there's an obvious _correct_ answer >because they are motivated to do _well_ >not _pass_ it. Again, you're still misinterpreting the word "test" in "Marshmallow Test". (Also keep in mind that "marshmallow test" isn't what the Stanford researchers called it.[1] The "Marshmallow Test" was only colloquial shorthand for behavioral experiments.) When you use the phrases "correct", "do well", "pass", it means you're repeating the same mistake of applying your post-hoc reasoning of "test" to 4-year old brains. Thinking that "waiting for 2 marshmallows" is the _correct_ answer is the wrong framework to use. This is not a school test where "2+3" where "5" is correct and "8" is incorrect. This is a psychological test where "test" means a contrived social apparatus to observe behavioral choices. This means that "choosing not to wait and immediately consume 1 marshmallow" is also the _correct_ answer. The child is given a choice where he/she must weigh an uncertain future with a certain present desire. There is no right or wrong answer. There is no pass or fail. There are only choices and observations of those choices. For example, one of the criticisms of the "Marshmallow Experiment" is that the researchers were actually measuring "trust & reliability of adults" vs "delayed gratification". In other words, the way we label the behavorial experiments will distort our view of what we think the "correct" answer is. E.g. if Johnny was told in the past by his mother that if he stopped pulling his sister's hair in the car, he'd get a treat when they got home. However, his monther didn't followup on that promise. Therefore, when the researcher gives him a choice between 1 marshmallow now or 2 if he waited until later, it means the 4-year old's "optimization" of the uncertain future is to take the 1 marshmallow now. This is the "correct" answer for him. [1] http://www.viriya.net/jabref/cognitive_and_attentional_mechanisms_in_delay_of_gratification.pdf http://www.viriya.net/jabref/cognitive_and_attentional_mecha...
Izkata 8y ago
> When my friends said I was a “genius,” I would sort-of-joke that I didn’t know anything but could score 75% on any test with a Scantron. This was a common sentiment among me and my friends in highschool. Much of the time, one or two of the answers to any given multiple-choice question were obviously wrong, and quite often another could be eliminated just because we knew the teacher or their previous tests well enough.

thaumasiotes 8y ago

> Certainly I personally possess this trait in spades, and my personal history is full of instances where this trait was extremely useful to me. I love taking tests. Sadly, this has essentially never been any use.

Smaug123 8y ago
Two immediate ways spring to mind, but it's a fundamental feature of my nature and I feel its influence in many of the things I do. * Liking (and therefore being good at) taking tests was useful in getting me into Cambridge, for example, and then in doing well at Cambridge. * I can feel The Desire To Pass Tests unfolding within me during interviews, like Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres's dark side, and it definitely helps: my Test-Taker enjoys interviews, however scared I might be of them, so I just let the Test-Taker take the interview instead of me.
- jakobegger 8y ago
  I absolutely hated taking tests (despite being good at it), and it's the reason why I dropped out of grad school and started a business. Everything in academia seemed to be a never ending series of tests: first literal tests and exams, later talk proposals and article submissions and applications for scholarships or grants... Academia seemed like one test after another, with no end in sight. At some point I just couldn't stand the feeling of other people judging me any more. I really liked university, I liked all those smart people, the work seemed interesting, but I just didn't want to be tested any more. Being self-employed means I no longer need to take tests. (I probably couldn't start a "startup" either, since applying for investments would be like taking a test as well)
ACow_Adonis 8y ago
I, on the other hand, am completely devoid of any desire to take or pass tests or perform for grader's/test takers, yet subjectively, I'd rate myself out to the right on the delayed gratification ability. The first created/creates significant problems in engaging with formal schooling: when I was younger I began simply not turning up to class or participating in assessment. It created the awkward situation where I did do a national standardised test one day and topped the year group for maths, but received a failing grade for maths class. In uni, the pattern essentially repeated itself. I (correctly) percieved the test taking and assessment as pedagogically irrelevant, and deviated from the course curriculums where my interests and own study took me. Delayed gratification however IS an important skill. One that, almost mathematically by definition, must give an advantage since it has an absolute advantage over the alternative. A person capable of delayed gratification has a greater range of possible options and strategies to achieve their goals, and can always opt for immediate gratification where it is appropriate, whereas a person incapable of delayed gratification can partake in no such choice. If empirical attempts to measure the effect of delayed gratification show no advantage therefore (assuming successful experiment design), there's actually another troubling possibility: society is (now) basing the distribution rewards and outcomes on those behaviours that are not determined by delayed gratification.

skookumchuck 8y ago

Do you feel that testing is irrelevant to mastery of a subject? That testing does not test for useful skills?

Smaug123 8y ago
That's too absolute a statement. If you're really good at a subject but terrible at taking tests, you can still do really well in a test by pure brute ability. But one of the money quotes from the blog post is: > When my friends said I was a “genius,” I would sort-of-joke that I didn’t know anything but could score 75% on any test with a Scantron. Test-taking is an ability that you can train (and, like any ability, some people enjoy exercising it and some do not), which in a select few situations can substitute for mastery of many other skills. Those select few situations also happen to be pretty common in the Western world.
- code_duck 8y ago
  When I was in school I used to joke that my greatest aptitude was for taking multiple-choice tests. I can do well on almost any multiple choice tests by using elimination and observations about the system of the test writer.
scns 8y ago
You need to selftest your knowledge to master a subject

vanderZwan 8y ago

Not to be snarky, but a comment like this makes it look like you did not bother to read the submitted article, as it states: > This new paper found that among kids whose mothers had a college degree, those who waited for a second marshmallow did no better in the long run—in terms of standardized test scores and mothers’ reports of their children’s behavior—than those who dug right in. Similarly, among kids whose mothers did not have college degrees, those who waited did no better than those who gave in to temptation, once other factors like household income and the child’s home environment at age 3 (evaluated according to a standard research measure that notes, for instance, the number of books that researchers observed in the home and how responsive mothers were to their children in the researchers’ presence) were taken into account. For those kids, self-control alone couldn’t overcome economic and social disadvantages.

chronial 8y ago
Please refer to the hn guidelines (linked in the footer) > Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." Regarding the content of your post: I don't see how that quote relates at all to the parent. They were talking about how "desire/ability to pass a test" is an interesting variable in these scenarios – something that's not mentioned in the article at all.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  It's directly related. His quote says that students who did well on the marshmallow test didn't do better on standardised tests. So it's unlikely they are just better test-takers.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  GPs explanation is nothing more than a hypothesis as to why the Marshmallow test would be predictive of later performance: > The post argues that [a "generalised ability/desire to take and pass tests"] is an underrecognised character trait which can predict success in today's Western test-oriented world. In other words: it follows the assumption that being good at the Marshmallow test represents inherent character traits that are predictive of later performance. Except that the whole point of the article is debunking this notion, and the paragraph that I quote highlights this in particular. The new paper shows that this is not the case. The Marshmallow test still is predictive, but that seems to be because being able to take it correlates with having affluent backgrounds, not with it representing an inherent character trait that predicts anything.

jasode 8y ago

>, but for a "generalised ability/desire to take and pass tests [...] the desire to pass the Marshmallow test). [...] You and the blog you linked are getting sidetracked by the word "test" in "Marshmallow Test". You're thinking of academic/schooling connotations of "test" instead of the scientific observations of a "test". I'd suggest to rewrite the "Marshmallow Test" in the brain as "Marshmallow Experiment". It is the observation of an experiment. The children ages 4 to 6 in the original Stanford experiments were not aware they were "taking a test" for a "correct" answer. There is no correct answer. It's a setup for choices taken by children. Choosing 1 marshmallow instead of waiting 15 minutes for 2 is not a "wrong" answer. The choices are collected as observations and researchers try to find correlations. In this way, the "Marshmallow Test" is more like "Pepsi/Coke taste test" instead of "SAT tests". The Marshmallow experiment may be flawed and the correlations may be also be dubious but dismissing it because children are trying to "pass tests" is misinterpreting it.

Smaug123 8y ago
But the Marshmallow Test is a test! The child is told not to eat the marshmallow (maybe not in so many words), so there's an obvious correct answer to the test ("don't eat the marshmallow"), and some people are motivated to take that answer because they are motivated to do well when they are being tested. My own history is full of this kind of incident. EDIT: to clarify, the Marshmallow Test is a test when viewed by someone who is always on the lookout for tests, like me and like some other children. Many children, I'm sure, would not view it as a test, and might correspondingly not pass it.
- jasode 8y ago
  >But the Marshmallow Test is a test! >, so there's an obvious _correct_ answer >because they are motivated to do _well_ >not _pass_ it. Again, you're still misinterpreting the word "test" in "Marshmallow Test". (Also keep in mind that "marshmallow test" isn't what the Stanford researchers called it.[1] The "Marshmallow Test" was only colloquial shorthand for behavioral experiments.) When you use the phrases "correct", "do well", "pass", it means you're repeating the same mistake of applying your post-hoc reasoning of "test" to 4-year old brains. Thinking that "waiting for 2 marshmallows" is the _correct_ answer is the wrong framework to use. This is not a school test where "2+3" where "5" is correct and "8" is incorrect. This is a psychological test where "test" means a contrived social apparatus to observe behavioral choices. This means that "choosing not to wait and immediately consume 1 marshmallow" is also the _correct_ answer. The child is given a choice where he/she must weigh an uncertain future with a certain present desire. There is no right or wrong answer. There is no pass or fail. There are only choices and observations of those choices. For example, one of the criticisms of the "Marshmallow Experiment" is that the researchers were actually measuring "trust & reliability of adults" vs "delayed gratification". In other words, the way we label the behavorial experiments will distort our view of what we think the "correct" answer is. E.g. if Johnny was told in the past by his mother that if he stopped pulling his sister's hair in the car, he'd get a treat when they got home. However, his monther didn't followup on that promise. Therefore, when the researcher gives him a choice between 1 marshmallow now or 2 if he waited until later, it means the 4-year old's "optimization" of the uncertain future is to take the 1 marshmallow now. This is the "correct" answer for him. [1] http://www.viriya.net/jabref/cognitive_and_attentional_mechanisms_in_delay_of_gratification.pdf http://www.viriya.net/jabref/cognitive_and_attentional_mecha...

Izkata 8y ago

> When my friends said I was a “genius,” I would sort-of-joke that I didn’t know anything but could score 75% on any test with a Scantron. This was a common sentiment among me and my friends in highschool. Much of the time, one or two of the answers to any given multiple-choice question were obviously wrong, and quite often another could be eliminated just because we knew the teacher or their previous tests well enough.