You're saying this after reading that researchers gave 5-year-olds marshmallows and told them they would get a second one if they waited for 15 mins instead of eating it? Because the kids who delayed their marshmallow gratification "are likely those who have the means to begin with"?
Consider a child who grows up with multiple older siblings in a bad neighborhood with an unreliable single parent. If promises are seldom upheld, possessions are stolen without recourse, and there is persistent scarcity to begin with... how likely will this child be able to delay gratification for a greater reward (in an isolated research center) when the totality of their life experience has trained them that doing so will most likely result in losing what they already have?
This is also explicitly called out in the article
> In other words, the child's ability to delay gratification and display self-control was not a predetermined trait, but rather was impacted by the experiences and environment that surrounded them. In fact, the effects of the environment were almost instantaneous. Just a few minutes of reliable or unreliable experiences were enough to push the actions of each child in one direction or another.
Why should you wait 15 minutes to get another one instead of eating the one you have now? Imagine two kids, one with abundance and another with nothing. Intelligence and other temperamental traits aside, do you think there'd be any difference in their inclination to wait?
I obviously can't say for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised. There are also other things that others have criticized about the experiment:
1. Desire for sweets -- maybe one doesn't like sweets
2. Preexisting hunger
3. The premise that 2 marshmallows are superior to 1.
etc.
I still think it was a good experiment, but it's hardly the end-all-be-all.
I imagine a better way to control for this is to have separate groups for different socioeconomic classes.
He actually concluded that focus and discipline have far more explanatory power in predicting future success than race, class, socioeconomic factors, or any other variable.
You can't just conveniently "leave these side" for no apparent reason when they could easily explain the effect that you're trying to explain otherwise.
> do you think there'd be any difference in their inclination to wait?
Not in favor of your argument. If you were in poverty and could get an extra marshmallow in this situation by simply waiting 15 minutes, wouldn't you be more likely to wait? Heck, make it more tangible: if someone offered you $100 now or $200 in 15 mins, wouldn't you be more likely to wait if you had nothing vs. if you were already well-off?
Unless you think the subjects here thought the whole experiment was some kind of taunting prank, I don't see how you think your explanation is likely.
I'm gonna say no.
---
> You can't just conveniently "leave these side" for no apparent reason when they could easily explain the effect that you're trying to explain otherwise.
These weren't tested variables. They're just as likely to be relevant as they are irrelevant without any data to back it up either way.
> Not in favor of your argument. If you were in poverty and could get an extra marshmallow in this situation by simply waiting 15 minutes, wouldn't you be more likely to wait? Heck, make it more tangible: if someone offered you $100 now or $200 in 15 mins, wouldn't you be more likely to wait if you had nothing vs. if you were already well-off?
Again, life experience can affect things. OK let's take your example. Let's say you're typically lied to for whatever reason. So in your example, you can get a guaranteed $100, or a 75% change of getting $200 in 15 minutes. How does that change behavior?
Which brings me to my last point: you say you'd be more likely to wait if you had nothing, but I disagree. If I had nothing I would definitely take what's guaranteed as opposed to what may be.
You're really going to say all this while pretending a marshmallow is the same thing to a 5-year-old as it is to a 30-year-old?
> These weren't tested variables.
Sure, I agree they should be tested.
> They're just as likely to be relevant
No. I think this is what we're disagreeing on.
> Again, life experience can affect things. OK let's take your example. Let's say you're typically lied to for whatever reason. So in your example, you can get a guaranteed $100, or a 75% change of getting $200 in 15 minutes. How does that change behavior?
Sure, if you're lied to you would be more likely to choose the bird in the hand rather than two in the bush.
And I also don't see how this is relevant unless for some reason you think being poor correlates strongly with being constantly lied to.
That... wasn't really the point. OK, replace it with coffee -- do you think an adult would wait 90 minutes for a second coffee they may or may not want when they can already get one instantly?
> And I also don't see how this is relevant unless for some reason you think being poor correlates strongly with being constantly lied to.
You don't why a poor person would be skeptical of the scenario you posed? If you live in an area with homeless people I challenge you to find one of them and do your experiment with $5 and $10 dollars, with 0 and 90 minutes respectively. I guarantee you the homeless person will take the $5.
Anyway, I'm not really sure what we're discussing at this point. My original statement, "People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with", is obviously true. Either that or you believe there's no factor that results in certain individuals being able to better delay gratification (whether that's cultural, genetic, or circumstantial). Clearly there must be some factor that's resulting in people being able to delay their gratification to begin with and therefore "have the means to do so to begin with."
The 15 minutes wasn't really my point either, but you assumed it was and I went along.
> OK, replace it with coffee -- do you think an adult would wait 90 minutes for a second coffee they may or may not want when they can already get one instantly?
I see people ordering 1 cup of coffee all the time and being satisfied that it's enough. When was the last time you saw someone being satisfied after eating 1 marshmallow?!
> You don't why a poor person would be skeptical of the scenario you posed?
No??
> If you live in an area with homeless people I challenge you to find one of them and do your experiment with $5 and $10 dollars, with 0 and 90 minutes respectively. I guarantee you the homeless person will take the $5.
Of course he would. And I challenge you to do the same thing with non-homeless people in your neighborhood. I bet they would react exactly the same way. Because a random nobody suddenly appearing out of the blue and offering you money in 90 minutes sounds like a prank or a scam. And because non-homeless people will also have (in fact, are more likely to have) more productive things to do in those 90 minutes than waste brainpower on whether/when/how you're planning to give them those $5. If this is how you're going to design counter-experiments you really don't seem to be in a position to criticize these experiments.
> Anyway, I'm not really sure what we're discussing at this point. My original statement, "People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with", is obviously true.
Yes, it's probably true, but also irrelevant to the point that the research is trying to make, which is that training yourself to delay gratification seems to pay off to your own benefit.
Oh, that was your point -- I complete agree then! Seems like we talked past each other a bit (or at least I to you). Apologies :D.
> Of course he would. And I challenge you to do the same thing with non-homeless people in your neighborhood. I bet they would react exactly the same way. Because a random nobody suddenly appearing out of the blue and offering you money in 90 minutes sounds like a prank or a scam. And because non-homeless people will also have (in fact, are more likely to have) more productive things to do in those 90 minutes than waste brainpower on whether/when/how you're planning to give them those $5. If this is how you're going to design counter-experiments you really don't seem to be in a position to criticize these experiments.
Most of the things you said here can also be applied to the children in the original experiment fwiw.
> I see people ordering 1 cup of coffee all the time and being satisfied that it's enough. When was the last time you saw someone being satisfied after eating 1 marshmallow?!
Indeed, which was my point. Without knowing how much the kids want a marshmallow/marginal utility of it, the marshmallow itself as an incentive is dubious, at best. Despite this I still think the experiment was solid.