Posted on 06/24/2019 7:46:41 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Are we talking full size marshmallows here, or the miniature ones that I like in my hot chocolate?
I’d be thinking of how I could S’more that sucker up!
Exactly. They controlled for socio-economic inputs as if that was an independent variable. But the entire point of the original experiment was that delayed gratification led to better socio-economic outcomes.
"Ultimately, the new study finds limited support for the idea that being able to delay gratification leads to better outcomes. 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."
We already know that socio-economic outcomes are tied to parents. Successful parents tend to produce successful children. It's not independent at all. So in "controlling" for that input they likely just controlled out the original finding, even if the original study was correct.
This seems to be a big logical flaw in this study design.
Several examples of The Marshmallow Test are on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=marshmallow+test
This article is complete balderdash.
The authors are completely full of Shiite.
Delay of gratification usually does result in better outcomes...
Further, a child being poor can learn to put off fun, excessive purchases, etc while focusing on their bigger ideal, which will be reduced if you spend your pay check every pay day, and run out money before you run out of month.
I don’t like marshmallows.
Exactly right.
Just seemed like more psycho-babbel to me.
The kids who could wait it out still did better, but there were a lot of "inequality" reasons why.
For other examples...immigrants,who came here from other nations, first wound up living in slum conditions, which were far worse than ANYTHING ever even imaginable in the second 1/2 of the 20th century, nor in this one. Also there were absolutely NO "safety net" government programs!
Were there crime in these areas? Yes, and gangs too.
OTOH,most poor families ( few of whom had much of an education )and poor kids strove to do better, saved what little money they could, and over time rose in status and did better. The money they made was used to SURVIVE and buying something frivolous was not just frowned on, but usually harshly punished.
Do you eat the first one so that you don't have to eat two of them? I'm also not a marshmallow fan unless they are scorched over a camp fire or melted into Rice Krispy treats.
One thing the second study didn't seem to mention is that those who are genetically or culturally inclined to delay gratification are the wealthier families, thus what the researchers are claiming is the cause is actually an effect.
Orwell said the same thing about the poor in The Road to Wigan Pier.
“Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn’t. Here the tendency of which I spoke at the end of the last chapter comes into play. When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don’t want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit ‘tasty’. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you.”
A big Charleston Chew bar was screaming at me to take it home from the grocery store tonight but I refused. I must have big things in my future.
Your father was poisoned?
Regards,
I can believe the original test was limited. The result seemed to make intuitive sense, but also provided a too-easy explanation. It seems simplistic.
Now we have a new study that found exactly what modern “researchers” always find, that socioeconomic class is destiny.
I don’t find this one any more credible than the original.
I would have taken the first marshmallow and eaten that without blinking. My reason: “Hell, you’re liberals! Why would I take your word that you even HAVE another marshmallow, let alone that you’d actually give it to the white-privileged kid who needs to pay reparations?”
If ya can’t be an outlier, why even try? ;)
You might be on to something... maybe the kids who take the marshmallow are kids who don’t trust the word of adults.
That was my experience as well of my parents that came of age during the Depression. Instant gratification because you were poor? Quite the opposite. My folks never bought me candy or gum or stuff. Once I started earning my own money my Dad would try to get me to not splurge so much on getting 25 cents worth of penny candy.
“You spend it on candy - and that’s gone in ten minutes and you have nothing to show for your hard work. Save it up for a bike or something that will last years.” (I still have that bike btw!)
I was one of the kids in that experiment. I was tested in 5th grade in nearby Mt. View (so was Steve Jobs, who was a year behind me). We figured out quickly what was going on: The bus they tested us in had a ‘mirror’ behind us that was, in fact, one-way glass . . .so we knew we were part of an experiment. Word got around quickly among us that we would get more stuff if we deferred the reward. The grad student testers must have been very impressed that we were all willing to wait a day to get a better gift (not a marshmallow, but a cool eraser, If I remember correctly). So much for child development research . . .
I actually see the redone study as having validity. I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor. It is very true that you can temporarily go without anything much easier when there is general surplus security. It is very true that even when poor families get a little windfall like a tax refund, they tend to spend it on something superfluously fun for their kids like Disneyland and not toward bills or dentist because they so wish for their children to have some little joys in their childhood.
I think the study redo has merit and I think it has an important conclusion:
DO NOT HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX IF YOU ARE POOR. The children you will have will be less able in this world just by your lack of surplus. They will suffer. Wait until you can afford a family before making one.
Always a great read!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.