- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rich Kids Fair Better at the Marshmallow Test Says Study Led By Tyler Watts
Posted on 6/3/18 at 11:19 am to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 6/3/18 at 11:19 am to RogerTheShrubber
Maybe low SES kids are less trusting of authority?
I'd like to see an experiment where a room full of kids gets a fun size candy bar and the same deal. But you repeat the test over several days.
What I'd be looking for is how many kids who don't wait 15 minutes the first day switch and wait 15 minutes the second or third day, after seeing that you really do get the promised reward.
I'd like to see an experiment where a room full of kids gets a fun size candy bar and the same deal. But you repeat the test over several days.
What I'd be looking for is how many kids who don't wait 15 minutes the first day switch and wait 15 minutes the second or third day, after seeing that you really do get the promised reward.
0
Posted on 6/3/18 at 11:29 am to StringedInstruments
I have to give a presentation to my hospital President and Admin soon on the subject of delayed gratification, perfect practice, those types of things.
I have a whole section lined up with the Marshmellow video, presentation is mostly done.
This could possibly make me have to start over.
I haven't read the article yet but it seems interesting. It wasn't a factor I had considered but logically now that I see it, it makes sense...almost is obvious I'd even say.
The original Marshmellow test for delayed gratification spoke to how some kids are just born with willpower. But we later learned it can be taught, so it makes perfect sense that kids from a poorer background would fare worse than kids from richer backgrounds as the poorer kids, on average, don't have that family structure in place to teach them these types of things.
I have a whole section lined up with the Marshmellow video, presentation is mostly done.
This could possibly make me have to start over.
I haven't read the article yet but it seems interesting. It wasn't a factor I had considered but logically now that I see it, it makes sense...almost is obvious I'd even say.
The original Marshmellow test for delayed gratification spoke to how some kids are just born with willpower. But we later learned it can be taught, so it makes perfect sense that kids from a poorer background would fare worse than kids from richer backgrounds as the poorer kids, on average, don't have that family structure in place to teach them these types of things.
This post was edited on 6/3/18 at 11:31 am
Posted on 6/3/18 at 11:33 am to RogerTheShrubber
Yeah I grew up dirt poor,you learned to appreciate the things that you get and not take them for granted. Because of this reason, even to this day I have a huge problem with wasteful spending.
Posted on 6/3/18 at 11:52 am to StringedInstruments
Maybe I’m the one who is misreading this, but doesn’t it seem like the conclusions are getting muddled here?
They checked for validation of the hypothesis that those who demonstrated delayed gratification in the marshmallow test would have better life outcomes, and they controlled for economic factors in upbringing. They concluded that economic factors in upbringing played a bigger role in future success than ostensible signs of ability to delay gratification in the marshmallow test.
So, are they disqualifying the concept of the ability to delay gratification as a predictor of future success? Or are they saying that economic realities in upbringing are the real predictor of future success?
Are they suggesting that there is no causation or even correlation between economic success and delayed gratification? I find that hard to believe.
They checked for validation of the hypothesis that those who demonstrated delayed gratification in the marshmallow test would have better life outcomes, and they controlled for economic factors in upbringing. They concluded that economic factors in upbringing played a bigger role in future success than ostensible signs of ability to delay gratification in the marshmallow test.
So, are they disqualifying the concept of the ability to delay gratification as a predictor of future success? Or are they saying that economic realities in upbringing are the real predictor of future success?
Are they suggesting that there is no causation or even correlation between economic success and delayed gratification? I find that hard to believe.
Posted on 6/3/18 at 11:54 am to shel311
quote:
The original Marshmellow test for delayed gratification spoke to how some kids are just born with willpower. But we later learned it can be taught, so it makes perfect sense that kids from a poorer background would fare worse than kids from richer backgrounds as the poorer kids, on average, don't have that family structure in place to teach them these types of things.
sadly you're right about your analysis but this is NOT what the person in the article in OP was implying
the author in OP is essentially demonizing the parents who have provided for their children and created an atmosphere of scarcity to frick over the lower SES children. they want to punish the good parents to reward the bad ones. it's madness
Posted on 6/3/18 at 11:56 am to shel311
quote:
The original Marshmellow test for delayed gratification spoke to how some kids are just born with willpower
Was it this, or was it simply that early signs of ability to delay gratification was a predictor of success, no matter how the person came to have that ability?
Posted on 6/3/18 at 11:57 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
Maybe I’m the one who is misreading this, but doesn’t it seem like the conclusions are getting muddled here?
the author interpreted a control as the conclusion of the study
psychology has a replication problem and when they replicated this popular and famous experiment, when they controlled for things like SES, the gap lowered. now, the actual results still had a gap, which is why they had to create those controls (as more liberal-minded academics love to do)
the author in OP is using this control as her argument, which is borderline dishonest
quote:
Are they suggesting that there is no causation or even correlation between economic success and delayed gratification? I
that's the secondary conclusion from the borderline dishonesty
more successful people take too much from the pie, which creates scarcity for everyone else, which means the parents facing scarcity create kids who "fail" the marshmellow experiment
Posted on 6/3/18 at 12:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
Wow, good points.
The author said this:
Why doesn’t the Author see that “Ability to delay gratification”= “capacity to hold out for another marshmallow”
She seems to have discovered that better economic backgrounds are correlated with delayed gratification AND future success. These aren’t exclusionary.
The author said this:
quote:
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.
Why doesn’t the Author see that “Ability to delay gratification”= “capacity to hold out for another marshmallow”
She seems to have discovered that better economic backgrounds are correlated with delayed gratification AND future success. These aren’t exclusionary.
This post was edited on 6/3/18 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 6/3/18 at 12:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
Okay, the author seems to come full circle by the end. She states:
So, was the original study debunked? The author is clearly making the case here that economic factors are what lead to the ability to delay gratification and that leads to future success.
Is the assumption that the original study was claiming to show that the ability to delay gratification was randomly achieved? Or that delayed gratification was unrelated to economic factors in upbringing? I’m pretty certain that wasn’t the conclusion at all.
quote:
These findings point to the idea that poorer parents try to indulge their kids when they can, while more-affluent parents tend to make their kids wait for bigger rewards.
So, was the original study debunked? The author is clearly making the case here that economic factors are what lead to the ability to delay gratification and that leads to future success.
Is the assumption that the original study was claiming to show that the ability to delay gratification was randomly achieved? Or that delayed gratification was unrelated to economic factors in upbringing? I’m pretty certain that wasn’t the conclusion at all.
Posted on 6/3/18 at 12:38 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Used to be, poor kids were trained to conserve. I suppose this isn't the case any more.
My great grandmother was almost OCD with the way she took care of her possessions. I asked her why and she explained that she went thru the great depression as a child.
Things were so bad that flour companies would sack their flour in pretty printed cloth bags so the buyers could use the bags to make badly needed clothes and such. Nothing was wasted or thrown away.
She longed to have things and worked hard to get them and to keep them. She saved up, bought quality items and proceeded to use them for decades.
It was just something that was almost ingrained on those who thru lived that.
Those are the types that live a modest and frugal life and then when they die, you discover they had amassed secret millions.
Posted on 6/3/18 at 12:43 pm to gingerkittie
quote:
Used to be, poor kids were trained to conserve. I suppose this isn't the case any more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My great grandmother was almost OCD with the way she took care of her possessions. I asked her why and she explained that she went thru the great depression as a child.
Yep, mine as well. Hell, even as kids we were taught to conserve and be patient simply because we didn't have a lot of money to buy things.
Posted on 6/3/18 at 12:47 pm to StringedInstruments
*Fare
Posted on 6/3/18 at 1:08 pm to StringedInstruments
A couple of observations:
Intelligence and wisdom are two separate traits, somewhat related.
Delayed gratification is usually more indicative of wisdom than intelligence.
My parents were both smart folks, maybe I’m as smart as each of them but I’m probably wiser now than either of them were as late-term middle-agers.
Possibly that’s why I’ve now “done better” than they did?
So wisdom (to me) has been more necessary than intelligence.
If someone brings food/lunch/cookies etc. into the office, I will probably not eat any of it while they are there.
I’m not going to be beholden to them of something so trivial.
Kinda Dwight Schrüte-ish but whatever.
Intelligence and wisdom are two separate traits, somewhat related.
Delayed gratification is usually more indicative of wisdom than intelligence.
My parents were both smart folks, maybe I’m as smart as each of them but I’m probably wiser now than either of them were as late-term middle-agers.
Possibly that’s why I’ve now “done better” than they did?
So wisdom (to me) has been more necessary than intelligence.
If someone brings food/lunch/cookies etc. into the office, I will probably not eat any of it while they are there.
I’m not going to be beholden to them of something so trivial.
Kinda Dwight Schrüte-ish but whatever.
Posted on 6/3/18 at 1:18 pm to StringedInstruments
How much longer before genetic privilege is a thing?
Posted on 6/3/18 at 1:36 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
Why doesn’t the Author see that “Ability to delay gratification”= “capacity to hold out for another marshmallow”
because it's not fair that people who live with the scarcity mindset fall behind in her eyes
Posted on 6/3/18 at 1:37 pm to StringedInstruments
I wasn't poor, but I'd take the marshmallow as soon as the guy put it down. I'd still do it now.
I have very bad impulse control, so that is my justification.
Eta: I do not make poor monetary decisions, just insignificant things, like eating a marshmallow
I have very bad impulse control, so that is my justification.
Eta: I do not make poor monetary decisions, just insignificant things, like eating a marshmallow
This post was edited on 6/3/18 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 6/3/18 at 2:55 pm to StringedInstruments
I bet rich kids know the difference between "fair" and "fare".
Posted on 6/3/18 at 3:37 pm to StringedInstruments
Correlation does not equal causation.
This is probably a big part of the problem.
quote:
Similarly, in my own research with Brea Perry, a sociologist (and colleague of mine) at Indiana University, we found that low-income parents are more likely than more-affluent parents to give in to their kids’ requests for sweet treats.
This is probably a big part of the problem.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News