Rich Kids Fair Better at the Marshmallow Test Says Study Led By Tyler Watts

this is funny b/c i read a similar article on this new study and it just said that the original couldn't be replicated when you controlled for the socioeconomic factors

which this article does say

quote:

---

Similarly, among kids whose mothers did not have college degrees, those who waited did no better than those who gave in to temptation, once other factors like household income and the child’s home environment at age 3 (evaluated according to a standard research measure that notes, for instance, the number of books that researchers observed in the home and how responsive mothers were to their children in the researchers’ presence) were taken into account.

---

but then spins into your OP

quote:

---

For those kids, self-control alone couldn’t overcome economic and social disadvantages.

---

the author is basically arguing about the scarcity mindset

quote:

---

The failed replication of the marshmallow test does more than just debunk the earlier notion; it suggests other possible explanations for why poorer kids would be less motivated to wait for that second marshmallow. For them, daily life holds fewer guarantees: There might be food in the pantry today, but there might not be tomorrow, so there is a risk that comes with waiting. And even if their parents promise to buy more of a certain food, sometimes that promise gets broken out of financial necessity.

Meanwhile, for kids who come from households headed by parents who are better educated and earn more money, it’s typically easier to delay gratification: Experience tends to tell them that adults have the resources and financial stability to keep the pantry well stocked. And even if these children don’t delay gratification, they can trust that things will all work out in the end—that even if they don’t get the second marshmallow, they can probably count on their parents to take them out for ice cream instead.

---

but i don't think that was the actual academic conclusion

ok i should have read ahead

quote:

---

The Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan and the Princeton behavioral scientist Eldar Shafir wrote a book in 2013, Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much, that detailed how poverty can lead people to opt for short-term rather than long-term rewards; the state of not having enough can change the way people think about what’s available now. In other words, a second marshmallow seems irrelevant when a child has reason to believe that the first one might vanish.

---

DEFINITELY making a "scarcity mindset" argument

In other words, the test worked but they looked for SJW excuses as to why kids failed it to fit their agenda. What a surprise.

quote:

---

This carries over to the office when a rep brings in lunch. The stampede to be first in line rivals the African plains.

---

You too, huh? I usually wait until 30 mins after the food has arrived to go in, fix a plate, and talk to the rep. It's a small room to begin with but you'd think the rep was bringing in suitcases full of cash to whomever is first in line.

quote:

---

But I bet most intelligent people are among the wealthier.

Just a hunch...

---

Which could lead to an interesting spin-off research question.

Wealth is often built through delayed gratification (investing small amounts of money for a modest return over decades; achieving little things in high school, college, and maybe graduate school to earn a respectable degree; starting at an entry-level position and working hard every day to earn promotions to higher paying positions). If poor kids are being raised to have a scarcity mindset, they'll never be able to have the patience and self-control to work their way out of poverty. However, if a poor kid was an outlier for intelligence, would he or she have the instinct to delay their gratification for the marshmallow?

Used to be, poor kids were trained to conserve. I suppose this isn't the case any more.

Rich people are smart, poor people are stupid

Especially in 2018

quote:

---

In other words, the test worked but they looked for SJW excuses as to why kids failed it to fit their agenda. What a surprise.

---

In the macro-socioeconomic field, subset research with statistical maleo-aggregated via the Kangz-Jackson-Lee theorem, your conclusion is considered as a BOOM!!!

Everything else being even, I would posit that more intelligent people tend to be wealthier than less intelligent people. I would also bet that more intelligent people tend to be better parents and to have stable two parent households than less intelligent people. I would also wager that children raised by good parents in stable two parent households do better on this (or any) test than a child raised by shite parents. So maybe the test is less an indicator of eating a marshmallow or planning for the future and more just a test of whether you are dealing with a disciplined child or a little shite who gobbles something in front of him instead of listening to the researcher at all.

quote:

---

I would posit that more intelligent people tend to be wealthier than less intelligent people

---

Beyond being wealthier, I would suggest those who aren't are far more likely to conserve than the modern version of a poor person.