3 ms·

I don't think the author disagrees. He's not implying that the marshmallow test is the cause for success. I think he says what you say - that passing the marshm

by mgfist 2y ago

I don't think the author disagrees. He's not implying that the marshmallow test is the cause for success. I think he says what you say - that passing the marshmallow test is a measure of success of how well you parented a child. Note the last sentence: > And who knows, maybe one day they will pass their own version of the marshmallow test The marshmallow test is just a rhetorical symbol for patience and virtue. I.e. "If I do well as a parent, my child will grow up to be patient and virtuous". Not, "If I get my kid to do well on this random pop-psych experiment right now, they'll grow up to be successful".

andrewla 2y ago
The idea of the article is to create an environment at home so that your child feels secure in the sense of being able to pass the marshmallow test. This is the same sort of logic that leads to the idea that you should have a large home library, because that is predictive of success, or make sure your kids don't have holes in their shoes because that is predictive of success. If you "fix" these things they lose their predictive power. Similarly if everyone tries to modify their parenting behavior so that the children can pass a hypothetical marshmallow test, then you will find that the test is no longer predictive of success.
- mgfist 2y ago
  > If you "fix" these things they lose their predictive power. Similarly if everyone tries to modify their parenting behavior so that the children can pass a hypothetical marshmallow test, then you will find that the test is no longer predictive of success. Maybe in the end nurture has no impact and the result is 100% due to nature. But what's the point in being a parent if that's the case? At that point is a philosophical debate akin to determinism vs free will. Maybe everything is pre-determined. And if it is, then why bother do anything? I think the moral of the article is that children will do as you do. So probably better to do virtuous things. Maybe in the end it won't matter, but nothing really matters in the end.
  - andrewla 2y ago
    This is a false dichotomy; that it's either 100% nature and you have no control or that you must obsessively apply whatever faddish unverified pseudoscience passes your way in order to ensure your child's success. Do what comes naturally. Do things that other parents around you are doing. If you want to do something that other parents are not doing, approach with caution but be openminded. Do things that your parents did that seem good, don't do things that your parents did that seem bad. Most importantly, if you encounter research that disagrees with your intuitions, ignore it. If you encounter research that agrees with your intuitions, also ignore it. If you encounter data-driven research that disagrees with your intuitions, then run screaming away. If you encounter data-driven research that agrees with your intuitions, then question your intuitions. Finally, live with the fact that a lot of how your children develop is completely out of your control. If you have multiple children this will become extremely obvious very quickly.
    - mgfist 2y ago
      "Do what comes naturally" has changed a lot over time. Corporal punishment used to be natural. Today, being on your phone is natural. But as a soon to be parent, I see the zombie kids on their ipads in public and there's just no way that's good for them. Which means I'll need to fix my own screen usage. You mentioned the research that correlates large home libraries with success. A related study is that the number of words a child hears in the first 4 years correlates with success. Maybe I'm a fool and it's psuedoscience, but it strikes me as plausible that a child who hears a lot more words will be better equipped for school (and by extension life). It's something I intend to do (by reading to my children, talking to them as I go about the day etc..). I'm not sure it's something I would've thought about too much if I wasn't exposed to the idea. Again, maybe it's rubbish, but my sample size is very small. I don't have 100 kids to test it out on. I don't take research blindly, but I don't think it's stupid to try and learn about ways to parent. And I certainly don't think the right way is what comes naturally to you.
      - andrewla 2y ago
        Old thread, so you probably won't see this reply, but just to close the loop. You're completely right -- most of the stuff you say is 100% on spot. The only thing I'd object to here is that you say "A related study is that ...". Ignore the study! If it seems plausible to you, then that's your intuition, and it's probably solid! I feel the same way, and I've put effort into this as well. Same with the zombie kids and the screen usage. I do feel like I'm fighting a useless battle because I have been unable to significantly affect my own screen usage, but I try to model good behavior and to try to force myself to follow the same advice I give my kids ("accept being bored sometimes"). > Again, maybe it's rubbish, but my sample size is very small. Yes! And this is because you are not taking a "scientific" approach to child raising, which is exactly what I would encourage. Don't put a fig leaf on it and try to cite studies about why it is true or what benefits it provides. Just do it and if people ask say that it seems to make sense to you.

by mgfist 2y ago

andrewla 2y ago

The idea of the article is to create an environment at home so that your child feels secure in the sense of being able to pass the marshmallow test. This is the same sort of logic that leads to the idea that you should have a large home library, because that is predictive of success, or make sure your kids don't have holes in their shoes because that is predictive of success. If you "fix" these things they lose their predictive power. Similarly if everyone tries to modify their parenting behavior so that the children can pass a hypothetical marshmallow test, then you will find that the test is no longer predictive of success.

mgfist 2y ago
> If you "fix" these things they lose their predictive power. Similarly if everyone tries to modify their parenting behavior so that the children can pass a hypothetical marshmallow test, then you will find that the test is no longer predictive of success. Maybe in the end nurture has no impact and the result is 100% due to nature. But what's the point in being a parent if that's the case? At that point is a philosophical debate akin to determinism vs free will. Maybe everything is pre-determined. And if it is, then why bother do anything? I think the moral of the article is that children will do as you do. So probably better to do virtuous things. Maybe in the end it won't matter, but nothing really matters in the end.
- andrewla 2y ago
  This is a false dichotomy; that it's either 100% nature and you have no control or that you must obsessively apply whatever faddish unverified pseudoscience passes your way in order to ensure your child's success. Do what comes naturally. Do things that other parents around you are doing. If you want to do something that other parents are not doing, approach with caution but be openminded. Do things that your parents did that seem good, don't do things that your parents did that seem bad. Most importantly, if you encounter research that disagrees with your intuitions, ignore it. If you encounter research that agrees with your intuitions, also ignore it. If you encounter data-driven research that disagrees with your intuitions, then run screaming away. If you encounter data-driven research that agrees with your intuitions, then question your intuitions. Finally, live with the fact that a lot of how your children develop is completely out of your control. If you have multiple children this will become extremely obvious very quickly.
  - mgfist 2y ago
    "Do what comes naturally" has changed a lot over time. Corporal punishment used to be natural. Today, being on your phone is natural. But as a soon to be parent, I see the zombie kids on their ipads in public and there's just no way that's good for them. Which means I'll need to fix my own screen usage. You mentioned the research that correlates large home libraries with success. A related study is that the number of words a child hears in the first 4 years correlates with success. Maybe I'm a fool and it's psuedoscience, but it strikes me as plausible that a child who hears a lot more words will be better equipped for school (and by extension life). It's something I intend to do (by reading to my children, talking to them as I go about the day etc..). I'm not sure it's something I would've thought about too much if I wasn't exposed to the idea. Again, maybe it's rubbish, but my sample size is very small. I don't have 100 kids to test it out on. I don't take research blindly, but I don't think it's stupid to try and learn about ways to parent. And I certainly don't think the right way is what comes naturally to you.
    - andrewla 2y ago
      Old thread, so you probably won't see this reply, but just to close the loop. You're completely right -- most of the stuff you say is 100% on spot. The only thing I'd object to here is that you say "A related study is that ...". Ignore the study! If it seems plausible to you, then that's your intuition, and it's probably solid! I feel the same way, and I've put effort into this as well. Same with the zombie kids and the screen usage. I do feel like I'm fighting a useless battle because I have been unable to significantly affect my own screen usage, but I try to model good behavior and to try to force myself to follow the same advice I give my kids ("accept being bored sometimes"). > Again, maybe it's rubbish, but my sample size is very small. Yes! And this is because you are not taking a "scientific" approach to child raising, which is exactly what I would encourage. Don't put a fig leaf on it and try to cite studies about why it is true or what benefits it provides. Just do it and if people ask say that it seems to make sense to you.