I love research like this. Our psyches are so complex and we are so filled with biases and errors in a plethora of ways that the only way IMHO we can compensate for it long term is to understand how those structures work and build social systems and structures that auto-correct it.
It looks like this area turns out to be one of the lucky ones that we can at least attempt to improve ourselves, unfortunately when it comes to cognition and particularly cognitive biases and errors to much of it seems not to work like muscles or have simple "do X" solutions.
Just a reminder that this result doesn't imply that practicing delaying gratification will improve your success. It may well be that a third factor causes both ability to delay gratification, and success.
It's remarkable that there is data about the outcomes of billions of lives, but we still have only vague indications about which behaviors lead to which outcomes.
> It's remarkable that there is data about the outcomes of billions of lives, but we still have only vague indications about which behaviors lead to which outcomes.
Do you really find that remarkable or is that just hyperbole? The fact that its so difficult to do controlled experiments - the holy grail of science - in this area in tandem with the fact that these are almost invariably complex systems we're dealing with makes it such that its not that surprising to me that we are still as confused as we are.
> We demonstrated that children’s sustained decisions to wait for a greater reward rather than quickly taking a lesser reward are strongly influenced by the reliability of the environment (in this case, the reliability of the researcher’s verbal assurances). More broadly, we have shown that young children’s performance on delay-of-gratification tasks can be strongly influenced by an implicit rational decision-making process.
People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with. I know it's not the point of research, but it would really be nice if this stuff was more prescriptive (to the article's defense they do touch on this a bit in the end).
Discipline and willpower and what not are great things, but for the average person simply creating an environment to which discipline is unnecessary is easier.
Some more thoughts for anyone who's bored out there:
----------------------------------------------------
1) Website usage: many people check websites religiously, just to see if anything is new. Most of the time nothing is new. A means to prevent the actual visiting of the website (which will lead to more wasted time) would be nice.
Example, you refresh the page right now, perhaps there are some new comments, maybe there aren't. Either way, maybe it's only worth it if there are X amount of new comments. A way to prevent "pointless" checks would be nice.
2) Soft reminder: it's worth thinking about a potential way to get someone back on track without explicitly reminding them to do so. I'm not quite sure how would do this (redirect to a website that was being worked on, maximizing the window that was important) as figuring out important itself is difficult, but it's worth a thought.
> People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with.
What kind of means? Psychological means? Delayed gratification implies that the object of one's desire is not a staple of life. Therefore delayed gratification works to one's favor if they are limited by finances or time. This whole thing sounds like a water is wet argument to me.
> Delayed gratification implies that the object of one's desire is not a staple of life.
I don't agree with this statement.
> Therefore delayed gratification works to one's favor if they are limited by finances or time.
It's not that difficult -- delaying gratification is about making a calculation about expected value and utility. Questions such as, will I get more if I delay are obviously considered. Other questions such as whether I want more, or whether or not I actually think I will get more are also considered.
> People who can delay gratification are likely those who have the means to do so to begin with.
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"?
Indeed I am. Clearly there must be some factor that resulted in the difference in the ability to delay -- whatever that factor is called, it has to be the "means."
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.
Yea, kid's who grow up with food scarcity probably wouldn't believe they would even get the second marshmallow. These are the type of kids who hoard food even when it becomes completely unnecessary later in life due to their childhood experiences.
I imagine a better way to control for this is to have separate groups for different socioeconomic classes.
I've been listening to the audiobook "Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence" by Daniel Goleman, and in one of the chapters, he brought up this experiment, along with many others (I think there was an Australian experiment that followed about 16,000 kids throughout their life).
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.
> Intelligence and other temperamental traits aside,
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.
You're focusing too much on the amount of time, but fine. I'm going to assume you're 30. 15 minutes for a 5 years old is at least 90 minutes for a 30 year old. Would you wait an hour and a half for a marshmallow?
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 focusing too much on the amount of time, but fine. I'm going to assume you're 30. 15 minutes for a 5 years old is at least 90 minutes for a 30 year old. Would you wait an hour and a half for a marshmallow? I'm gonna say no.
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.
> 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?
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.
> 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.
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.
This is something I've been thinking about lately; so much recent pop culture centers about 'genius' figures who seem to always know what to do and how, but I don't believe that most big discoveries and innovations are a result of 'eureka' moments or some sort of savant who just Knows Everything.
What I think matters, besides good old-fashioned luck, is having a person or group of people that is willing to bang its head against a brick wall for hours on end, day after day, week after week, until the cracks finally start to show. That sort of perseverance requires a lot of things, but the ability to put off a payday until you've gotten a few more metaphorical concussions is probably a big part of it.
> person or group of people that is willing to bang its head against a brick wall for hours on end, day after day, week after week, until the cracks finally start to show
This is what getting a PhD is like (at least in STEM). I mean, you do have to be smart, but you also have to be willing to work on a specific, technical, narrowly defined problem for years. It's great.
I think most people would be in shock to find out how much time is spent banging the proverbial head against the wall, without interruption to blow off steam, get a drink, go see a movie, etc. most people don't have the will power to maintain that focus for the months and years it takes to make those breakthroughs.
Also, the more wealthy you are, the better you'd be at delaying gratification, even if you are very young. If you never know hunger or want and you know that the "marshmellow" will always be there, then you can more easily delay gratification. But if you are poor and you know that the marshmellow might not be there tomorrow, you are less likely to delay gratification.
Sometimes I think there's a perfect balance these people have between the ability to put off reward and the ability to enjoy reward.
Because I can put off rewards but what I end up doing is saying "I can live without that reward forever" and it turns into asceticism, not success.
I feel like if I could combine my ability to put off rewards with an enhanced sense of "winning" when I do finally pull something off, I could motivate myself to "succeed" better.
Some failing people are just delaying their gratification even more.
What form of gratification could be more delayed than being unknown and struggling all your life, and then having your works achieve posthumous renown?
26 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 62.9 ms ] threadIt looks like this area turns out to be one of the lucky ones that we can at least attempt to improve ourselves, unfortunately when it comes to cognition and particularly cognitive biases and errors to much of it seems not to work like muscles or have simple "do X" solutions.
It's remarkable that there is data about the outcomes of billions of lives, but we still have only vague indications about which behaviors lead to which outcomes.
Do you really find that remarkable or is that just hyperbole? The fact that its so difficult to do controlled experiments - the holy grail of science - in this area in tandem with the fact that these are almost invariably complex systems we're dealing with makes it such that its not that surprising to me that we are still as confused as we are.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3730121/
> We demonstrated that children’s sustained decisions to wait for a greater reward rather than quickly taking a lesser reward are strongly influenced by the reliability of the environment (in this case, the reliability of the researcher’s verbal assurances). More broadly, we have shown that young children’s performance on delay-of-gratification tasks can be strongly influenced by an implicit rational decision-making process.
Discipline and willpower and what not are great things, but for the average person simply creating an environment to which discipline is unnecessary is easier.
Some more thoughts for anyone who's bored out there: ----------------------------------------------------
1) Website usage: many people check websites religiously, just to see if anything is new. Most of the time nothing is new. A means to prevent the actual visiting of the website (which will lead to more wasted time) would be nice.
Example, you refresh the page right now, perhaps there are some new comments, maybe there aren't. Either way, maybe it's only worth it if there are X amount of new comments. A way to prevent "pointless" checks would be nice.
2) Soft reminder: it's worth thinking about a potential way to get someone back on track without explicitly reminding them to do so. I'm not quite sure how would do this (redirect to a website that was being worked on, maximizing the window that was important) as figuring out important itself is difficult, but it's worth a thought.
EDIT: grammar
What kind of means? Psychological means? Delayed gratification implies that the object of one's desire is not a staple of life. Therefore delayed gratification works to one's favor if they are limited by finances or time. This whole thing sounds like a water is wet argument to me.
I don't agree with this statement.
> Therefore delayed gratification works to one's favor if they are limited by finances or time.
It's not that difficult -- delaying gratification is about making a calculation about expected value and utility. Questions such as, will I get more if I delay are obviously considered. Other questions such as whether I want more, or whether or not I actually think I will get more are also considered.
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"?
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.
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.
What I think matters, besides good old-fashioned luck, is having a person or group of people that is willing to bang its head against a brick wall for hours on end, day after day, week after week, until the cracks finally start to show. That sort of perseverance requires a lot of things, but the ability to put off a payday until you've gotten a few more metaphorical concussions is probably a big part of it.
This is what getting a PhD is like (at least in STEM). I mean, you do have to be smart, but you also have to be willing to work on a specific, technical, narrowly defined problem for years. It's great.
Because I can put off rewards but what I end up doing is saying "I can live without that reward forever" and it turns into asceticism, not success.
I feel like if I could combine my ability to put off rewards with an enhanced sense of "winning" when I do finally pull something off, I could motivate myself to "succeed" better.
But then again, what is "success?"
What form of gratification could be more delayed than being unknown and struggling all your life, and then having your works achieve posthumous renown?