Posted on 06/24/2019 7:46:41 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
What if you set your marshmallow on fire?
A kid might also think, “one marshmallow is plenty.” And I confess, when I was a certain age, I might just have been contrary enough to eat the one immediately and tell them, “I don’t want the second one.”
Researchers attempted to confirm the results of the study by conducting a “spam test” and a “brussel sprout test”. 100% delayed gratification.
This new result isn’t in contradiction to the original test; it affirms it. It shows why poverty is passed down, despite government programs to increase social motility.
The similarity of the kids’ socioeconomic background in the first test was actually useful; it reduced the socioeconomic of the parenting without presuming causality.
What drives the marshmallow test? The emotional security of the pay-off. Poor kids lack that security, and act in ways that perpetuate poverty.
And Hershey’s special dark chocolate does not qualify.
Awwww...dang it.
although they don’t come out and say it, white privilege mostly
We’re poor and have a whole bag of marshmallows sitting on the shelf. If one of the kids wants a few for dessert, they’ll ask.
You’re only as rich as you feel.
Has no-one ever noted the similarity between this test and the forgiven sin of Charlie Bucket in the chocolate factory?
Satisfied? test ... incentive of just one more marshmallow isn't enough to stifle taking the offered snack. One is enough for now, but I'd wait fifteen minutes for a bag of them to take home and share.
Researchers can read whatever they want into the results. I wonder if the resaercheres were offered a second grant, if they'd hold off conducting this study.
It means the researchers missed the lede.
The first study was correct.
What they just uncovered is that rich people are generally rich because they are smarter and think long term and pass that those traits in to their children.
But being biased liberals they cannot fathom that basic fact, so they declare the test faulty and biased.
I remember that bit from the book.
However, he is talking about radically deprived people.
The poor of the inner city have internal deprivations and external abuses, but not the stringint deprevation of that era.
As usual, trying to blame nameless, faceless, socioeconomics, rather than parents and individuals.
If children are not taught right vs. wrong, they will not be able to make good life decisions.
Isn’t Pocket owned by Mozilla...?
Yes, where are the controls? The variables? Holes can be poked through both sets of tests, and not just these, but most others, as you made mention.
The urban poor today are different than the poor in the Depression.
The first, most obvious point, is that you mention a father.
The second was a general lack of dependence on the government—you depended on family and neighbors who shared a similar circumstance.
Times change and social standards change.
Plus, like all studies that are grand in scope and scale, your experience is going to be different.
I thought a Marshmallow test would be about who can toast one a perfect brown color vs. those who turn it into a flaming charcoal mess.
The very basis of this should be questioned. For example, with many foods, I can eat “just one.” All I want is one. If a marshmallow was that food, it wouldn’t say anything about delayed gratification, because there would be no delayed gratification.
I love raspberry turnovers. But one is my limit, no matter how good it tastes.
A second issue is, I’m not particularly fond of marshmallows. Don’t hate them, but would never eat one by itself. Not interested. Again, no delayed gratification.
Good thinking..!! :)
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.