The article doesn't mention this but that test is not very well regarded currently. It's basically a test of food security and trust in adults rather than any particular behavioral benchmark.
I don't care if its my favorite treat either. I believed quite strongly that a little vs a lot doesn't matter: the best parts are in the anticipation, the initial bite, and enjoying the lingering aftertaste. Having more more bites to eat is a gimmick with nothing but downsides (however now I get how things like addiction can drastically alter that equation so the "more" is practically everything).
So show me a version of this test that doesn't have the assumption "all kids are greedy for food and the most successful ones will optimize for that" at its core.
>The other part of the experiment was to test how good the six cuttlefish were at learning. They were shown two different visual cues, a grey square and a white one. When they approached one, the other would be removed from the tank; if they made the "correct" choice, they would be rewarded with a snack.
>Once they had learnt to associate a square with a reward, the researchers switched the cues, so that the other square now became the reward cue. Interestingly, the cuttlefish that learnt to adapt to this change the quickest were also the cuttlefish that were able to wait longer for the shrimp reward.
https://rs.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Data_set_raw_traini...