You probably know the "marshmellow experiment": have one marshmellow now, or delay the gratification by some time, then get two. What the experiment is supposed to measure is something like intelligence or impulse control.

Hot take: what it also measures, and much more so when it comes to reality, is trust. If I don't trust the other side to be both able and willing to deliver on the promise later, I will rather secure the smaller reward right now.

One marshmallow now is better than two promised by George Bush

had my own take on it

not trust but privilege. people can only think ahead if their environment is consistent, if they're from a well-off family nobody fucks with, go to a good school where the teachers don't fuck with them, where if they start projects their house isn't randomly shot up halfway through them, where their managers aren't power-trippers or at least someone somewhere up above the chain will protect them. you aren't going to build a house and farm if you know random bandits travel the land and steal and burn your shit

you don't need trust. Hard to plan ahead and be less impulsive if you don't know if you'll be eating tomorrow. it literally says nothing about people's abilities. it's like the survivalship bias plane all over again

you can think ahead all you want. the people from bad backgrounds just do it differently than you -- they go for cunning

I hate correlations. show me the charts of every point on them. how about that

It measures impulse control, and you forgot to mention the experiment is done with children. Which are probably put there by their parents.

That will shift the trust onto the parent, the Child is going to assume the parent is going to make sure the other adults (the scientists), are going to do what they promised. I think that negates your take at least somewhat. Though it could still have something to do if the children trust the parents.

Eitherway the experiment results of the experiment are already overshadowed by more up-to-date experiment on self control. At the time the experiment argued that self-control is an expendable resource and the kids that were tapping into it less, and playing around ignoring the marshmallow were more successful than the ones that kept staring at the marshmallow just waiting for the second one not doing anything else.

However latest data shows that that's not the complete picture and it's actually a bit backwards

Now the meta is that it's not an expendable, but instead it's a system that we engage with actively and it disengages if we try to force ignore it. Essentially if you really really want something, but you know you shouldn't, then you're going to be able to control yourself much better if you don't ignore the craving and instead keep it actively in your mind until it either fades away naturally (your focus shifts completely) or until you gain the privilege to finally take the marshmallow along with the second one (if we're talking marshmallows again)

The trick is that the moment you try to distract yourself forcefully like "no, I have to stop thinking about this!" while the craving is still active and your self-control circuit is trying to keep it in check, you will only succeed in turning the self-control circuit off and the craving will likely take over soon instead and you wont be able to resist anymore.

Apparently this model matches up much better with real life experience of people. At least It does match with mine. If I really want some chocolate because I'm stressed, then as long as I keep thinking "I shouldn't do this" I'm going to not go get chocolate... But if I think "Damn, just shut up brain, I don't want to think about this anymore, let's focus on work" then I'm more likely to eventually just go get that damn chocolate... Instead I do find it more effective to just keep the system engaged and think "Oh well, I guess I want some chocolate, but I'm not going to get it" and continue working despite still feeling the craving somewhat.

This works because 1. you help the self-control system reach a resolution by making a conscious decision on what it's telling you and 2. you didn't disable it, so although you still have a craving, you are keeping it in check

something like that

@Hazarth > "Oh well, I guess I want some chocolate, but I'm not going to get it"

That explains why I can last long without going to the bathroom after having needed to pee 3 hours ago.

that used to be called job

But what if I am aware that if I take the first marshmallow now, the experiment is done and I can get marshmallows on my own afterwards instead of waiting?

Ok the little kids are probably not aware of that.

But yeah, not sure what conclusions we can really take out of that experiment to be fair.