3 ms·

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 ment

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.
- chronial 8y ago
  > 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. And Smaug123 referenced that by saying > 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 You might have misinterpreted the article in question, since you write: > 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 [...] The article does no such thing. It only shows that controlled for socioeconomic situation, there is no correlation. That does not mean that there is no predictive power.
  - vanderZwan 8y ago
    First of all, I do not understand why you would argue that I don't understand the article because I supposedly claim that the test has no predictive power, since I literally write "the Marshmallow test still is predictive". Furthermore, Smaug123's explanation here is flawed: > 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 The reason it does not make sense in this context is the very thing you cite yourself: when controlled for socio-economic background, the predictive power disappears. If the predictive power of the Marshmallow test could be ascribed to character traits, controlling to socio-economic backgrounds should enhance the signal of the predictive power, not remove it altogether.
    - chronial 8y ago
      > If the predictive power of the Marshmallow test could be ascribed to character traits, controlling to socio-economic backgrounds should enhance the signal of the predictive power, not remove it altogether. This might be the source of the misunderstanding: What you say would only be true if character traits and socioeconomic background were uncorrelated, which is the opposite of what smaug suggested.
      - mortehu 8y ago
        If the relationship is `y=x₀+x₁+𝓝`, then x₀ is more strongly correlated to `y-x₁` than it is to `y` alone. This holds even if x₀ and x₁ are strongly correlated, as long as they're not 100% correlated.
        chronial 8y ago
        If y = x_0 and x_1 = x_0 + N, then y = x_1 - N. Then y and x_1 are highly correlated. But y - x_0 = 0 – which is not correlated to x_1 at all. y is "success" x_0 is "socioeconomic background" x_1 is "result of the marshmallow test"

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.

chronial 8y ago
> 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. And Smaug123 referenced that by saying > 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 You might have misinterpreted the article in question, since you write: > 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 [...] The article does no such thing. It only shows that controlled for socioeconomic situation, there is no correlation. That does not mean that there is no predictive power.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  First of all, I do not understand why you would argue that I don't understand the article because I supposedly claim that the test has no predictive power, since I literally write "the Marshmallow test still is predictive". Furthermore, Smaug123's explanation here is flawed: > 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 The reason it does not make sense in this context is the very thing you cite yourself: when controlled for socio-economic background, the predictive power disappears. If the predictive power of the Marshmallow test could be ascribed to character traits, controlling to socio-economic backgrounds should enhance the signal of the predictive power, not remove it altogether.
  - chronial 8y ago
    > If the predictive power of the Marshmallow test could be ascribed to character traits, controlling to socio-economic backgrounds should enhance the signal of the predictive power, not remove it altogether. This might be the source of the misunderstanding: What you say would only be true if character traits and socioeconomic background were uncorrelated, which is the opposite of what smaug suggested.
    - mortehu 8y ago
      If the relationship is `y=x₀+x₁+𝓝`, then x₀ is more strongly correlated to `y-x₁` than it is to `y` alone. This holds even if x₀ and x₁ are strongly correlated, as long as they're not 100% correlated.
      - chronial 8y ago
        If y = x_0 and x_1 = x_0 + N, then y = x_1 - N. Then y and x_1 are highly correlated. But y - x_0 = 0 – which is not correlated to x_1 at all. y is "success" x_0 is "socioeconomic background" x_1 is "result of the marshmallow test"