4 ms·

It failed. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow-test/561779/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmall...

SeanLuke 8y ago
That much is obvious. But your link is to a different replication study. I want to know why there is an asterisk at the bottom of this article.
hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Reading your article, I wouldn't necessarily interpret it as "failed": > Instead, it suggests that the capacity to hold out for a second marshmallow is shaped in large part by a child’s social and economic background—and, in turn, that that background, not the ability to delay gratification, is what’s behind kids’ long-term success. I.e. it would still seem to say that the capability to delay gratification is tied to economic success, except that's really a confounding variable. It's also very possible that the ability to delay gratification that one gets from being more affluent is also a factor in future success.
- taeric 8y ago
  Both of those, though, spell failure for the original experiment. It claimed that the predictor was delayed gratification. That is false as false as the predictor of future success being how successful you are in 10 years. :)
- eezurr 8y ago
  I'm guilty of not reading the article, but I find pleasure in poking apart statistical analysis. There are so many things to consider, like average sugar intake of affluent/non-affluent families at the time of the first test and now. If both classes consume candy, perhaps the affluent have access to tastier candy (maybe important because the wealth distribution in the early 90s was more equal), so marshmallows are not tasty to them. (Note: I haven't had a marshmallow in a long time, but they are no where near as tasty as candy bought off the check out shelves). If present affluent families are educated about sugar (which was less so the case in the early 90s), they would probably feed their children less junk food, so the desire of wanting more of it is not as hard wired in their neurons, or it would taste overly sweet to them. Maybe less affluent families give their children sweets all the time because it shuts them up. Maybe the recipe of marshmallows has changed between then and now (see point 1).

SeanLuke 8y ago

That much is obvious. But your link is to a different replication study. I want to know why there is an asterisk at the bottom of this article.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

Reading your article, I wouldn't necessarily interpret it as "failed": > Instead, it suggests that the capacity to hold out for a second marshmallow is shaped in large part by a child’s social and economic background—and, in turn, that that background, not the ability to delay gratification, is what’s behind kids’ long-term success. I.e. it would still seem to say that the capability to delay gratification is tied to economic success, except that's really a confounding variable. It's also very possible that the ability to delay gratification that one gets from being more affluent is also a factor in future success.

taeric 8y ago
Both of those, though, spell failure for the original experiment. It claimed that the predictor was delayed gratification. That is false as false as the predictor of future success being how successful you are in 10 years. :)
eezurr 8y ago
I'm guilty of not reading the article, but I find pleasure in poking apart statistical analysis. There are so many things to consider, like average sugar intake of affluent/non-affluent families at the time of the first test and now. If both classes consume candy, perhaps the affluent have access to tastier candy (maybe important because the wealth distribution in the early 90s was more equal), so marshmallows are not tasty to them. (Note: I haven't had a marshmallow in a long time, but they are no where near as tasty as candy bought off the check out shelves). If present affluent families are educated about sugar (which was less so the case in the early 90s), they would probably feed their children less junk food, so the desire of wanting more of it is not as hard wired in their neurons, or it would taste overly sweet to them. Maybe less affluent families give their children sweets all the time because it shuts them up. Maybe the recipe of marshmallows has changed between then and now (see point 1).