New study disavows marshmallow test’s predictive powers

Re:New study disavows marshmallow test’s predictive powers by rahimnathwani on Monday February 21, 2022 @07:33PM (#30422690)

IIRC one theory is that parental wealth may be a confounding variable. Roughly speaking, if you grow up in a poor household, you're more likely to face unpredictable situations, including situations in which promises cannot be kept (e.g. due to unexpected financial shocks). So, if you're offered a marshmallow now or two later, you'll rationally (based on past experience) go for the sure thing.

I don't remember whether I read this in relation to the original study, or a follow-up. But it sounds more plausible than the original explanation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New study disavows marshmallow test’s predictive powers by s1artibartfast on Tuesday February 22, 2022 @01:35AM (#30424664)

That can all be true and be compatible with the fact that the ability to delay gratification provides certain advantages.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New study disavows marshmallow test’s predictive powers by rahimnathwani on Tuesday February 22, 2022 @12:47PM (#30430953)

Right, but the original experiment did not measure (A) 'the ability to delay gratification'. It measured (B) the decision children took in the face of uncertainty. Only if all children assessed the chance of getting the promised second marshmallow as ~100%, would be (B) be a reasonable proxy for (A).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New study disavows marshmallow test’s predictive powers by s1artibartfast on Tuesday February 22, 2022 @02:11PM (#30432201)

I would argue that B is a subset of A. If you can't delay gratification because your mental model is an inconsistant world with broken promises, you still failed to delay gratification. B may explain the response to A, and be rational based on personal experience, but the action was still taken.

The question of why some children can delay gratification is different that what how predictive delayed gratification is of life outcomes.

It can also be true that broken promises are a better prediction of future outcomes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New study disavows marshmallow test’s predictive powers by rahimnathwani on Wednesday February 23, 2022 @12:10AM (#30437902)

'can' is inherent (a capability of the child)

'do' depends on context

I am capable of driving fast, and weaving in and out of traffic on the freeway. But I choose not to, due to the risk/reward trade-off.

If I were in a different situation (e.g. sick child needing to get to hospital urgently), I might act differently.

Measuring my behaviour in one context may tell you little about what I can and might do in another.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New study disavows marshmallow test’s predictive powers by s1artibartfast on Wednesday February 23, 2022 @12:37PM (#30443830)

This is all quibbles. Replace can with do in my statement and it still stands. Measuring what people do can also have predictive power.

>Measuring my behaviour in one context may tell you little about what I can and might do in another.

It may tell you little, or it may tell you a lot. That is why you run a study and see how predictive it is.

If someone drives fast and reckless today, they might not tomorrow. You can still run a study to see how predictive today's driving is for tomorrow. It won't be 100%, but I bet you would see some correlation. Someone who smoked a cigarette today is more likely to smoke tomorrow than someone that who didn't smoke today. That people can quit and can start doesn't change this

[ Parent | on HN ]