3 ms·

You have a lot of people that take that last fact and then assume the converse. But in a poor household, taking the marshmallow now is likely the optimal choic

You have a lot of people that take that last fact and then assume the converse. But in a poor household, taking the marshmallow now is likely the optimal choice since there might not be any later — even if your parents tell you to wait. That’s not necessarily a sign of anything but having adapted to a particular environment: times you listened led to a negative outcome, so you stopped.

autoexec 2y ago
You're right. Although it can hint at the possibility of those types of problems, the marshmallow test shouldn't be used to make those kinds of assumptions, especially in isolation. Like I said, it can signal a lot of very different things (even hunger).
motorest 2y ago
> But in a poor household, taking the marshmallow now is likely the optimal choice since there might not be any later — even if your parents tell you to wait. That’s not necessarily a sign of anything but having adapted to a particular environment: times you listened led to a negative outcome, so you stopped. You've repeated the whole thesis from the article: people are conditioned for delayed gratification if that is possible/predictable, and then asserts that parents have the influence to develop that trait in kids by fostering predictability.
- autoexec 2y ago
  To further complicate things, kids in poor households tend to have more behavioral/executive function/developmental issues. It's still worth pointing out that just failing the marshmallow test shouldn't cause someone to assume anything.
bell-cot 2y ago
"Poor" isn't needed here. If the kid has siblings, or the family has an "opportunistic" dog, or the kid has spent time in a daycare where treats are sometimes grabbed, or ... Or the kid is getting bored by the stupid researcher and her stupid test, and is trying to get it over with as fast as he can.

3 ms·

You have a lot of people that take that last fact and then assume the converse. But in a poor household, taking the marshmallow now is likely the optimal choic

by zmgsabst 2y ago

autoexec 2y ago
You're right. Although it can hint at the possibility of those types of problems, the marshmallow test shouldn't be used to make those kinds of assumptions, especially in isolation. Like I said, it can signal a lot of very different things (even hunger).
motorest 2y ago
> But in a poor household, taking the marshmallow now is likely the optimal choice since there might not be any later — even if your parents tell you to wait. That’s not necessarily a sign of anything but having adapted to a particular environment: times you listened led to a negative outcome, so you stopped. You've repeated the whole thesis from the article: people are conditioned for delayed gratification if that is possible/predictable, and then asserts that parents have the influence to develop that trait in kids by fostering predictability.
- autoexec 2y ago
  To further complicate things, kids in poor households tend to have more behavioral/executive function/developmental issues. It's still worth pointing out that just failing the marshmallow test shouldn't cause someone to assume anything.
bell-cot 2y ago
"Poor" isn't needed here. If the kid has siblings, or the family has an "opportunistic" dog, or the kid has spent time in a daycare where treats are sometimes grabbed, or ... Or the kid is getting bored by the stupid researcher and her stupid test, and is trying to get it over with as fast as he can.