3 ms·
Thinking that the only reason poor kids would prefer to eat the first marshmallow due to having a low willpower is incredibly shallow: what if the kid had an ex
by heavenlyblue 8y ago
Thinking that the only reason poor kids would prefer to eat the first marshmallow due to having a low willpower is incredibly shallow: what if the kid had an experience in life that tells him that no matter how credible the source is, the second marshmallow has a huge probability of never coming; or for what's it worth - they'll take away both of them since the child tried to be "smart”?
Edit: came here to attack the article, but turns out my opinion is actially the opinion of the article in the first place. They actually do say that this test is not actually a test of willpower.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ivanhoe 8y agoYou have an over-simplistic view of the original research. It wasn't only about the "willpower", but also coping mechanisms than we employ to control our urges. And it proven that some children are way better in this than others. For instance some kids would turn their back to the cookie, or would come up with some other distraction, so that they don't think about eating it. Having this type of resourcefulness to quickly adopt to the situation is probably a personal trait that comes very handy in one's life.
- heavenlyblue 8y agoYou’re arguing definitions. Resourcefullness is encompassed by willpower in the context of this article. Yet the point I am trying to make is that poor kids would have a tendency to make their decisions based on their context which isn’t, sadly - optimal in most cases. The connection between “this kid doesn’t have to think about rudimentary issues because he’s better off” becomes closer to “rich people can risk more because their risk is hedged by their well-being”.