The Rochester researchers once again got a bunch of kids into a room. But they did something a bit different. Right before giving the kid a marshmallow, they would have an encounter with an adult. One would be unreliable; he would promise a bunch of fun art supplies that would never appear. Another would be reliable, delivering the art supplies as promised. That earlier encounter had a huge influence on kids’ willingness to wait for a second marshmallow. Only one of the 14 children in the unreliable condition held out for the full 15-minute wait. They may have assumed that the second marshmallow, just like the art supplies, was a big lie. More than half of the kids who had just had a reliable encounter, however, made it through the 15-minute wait.
I’m thinking further, and considering the general priors for trust that the kids walk into the room with. I can somewhat see the problem with my own behavior. Lacking trust, you take the marshmallow in the hand, instead of the two in a contingent trustworthy future.
It reminds me of some “children of alcoholics” book I read once. It said that alcoholics often make promises to their children that they later do not fulfill. And then those children have long-term problem with trust and self-discipline, even decades later.
If that is true, I would expect such children to do worse in the Marshmallow test and to have worse outcomes later in life.
The flip side of the unreliable parent is the French Parent—I bought some book about French parenting as compared to US parenting to give to a friend. The basic thrust was that the parent, when it came to discipline, should be something like a force of nature. Sure, swift, serene, no bargaining, no upset. Caring, but imperturbable. This is the way it is. You do this, this happens. Gravity, with a hug.
Which leads me to a very disturbing thought. At first, I thought a test to differentiate trust in people versus self discipline was possible. Factor the person out of the marshmallow scenario, and see how the kids do.
But that doesn’t really prove anything. What if trust is learned as a whole, when young? Your parents are a force of nature. They are the universe, when you’re a baby. If they’re capricious, unpredictable, and worse, malevolent, then that’s your emotional estimate of the universe. It’s not that you don’t have self discipline, it’s that you live in a malevolent, unpredictable universe that you rightly don’t trust. Or so it seems to you.
It would be interesting to correlate parental behavior and one’s picture of God. Maybe that feeling of God some people have is the psychic after image of how the universe, mainly through mom and dad, appeared to them when young.
What if trust is learned as a whole, when young? Your parents are a force of nature. [...] If they’re capricious, unpredictable, and worse, malevolent, then that’s your emotional estimate of the universe. It’s not that you don’t have self discipline, it’s that you live in a malevolent, unpredictable universe that you rightly don’t trust. Or so it seems to you.
Yes. People bring many aliefs from their childhood; predictability of the universe is probably one of them.
If your model says that one marshmallow is sure, but two marshmallows have probability smaller than 50%, then choosing one is better. If your model says that you cannot trust anything, including yourself, then following short-term pleasures is better than following long-term goals.
How can this model be fixed? It would probably require a long-term exposure to some undeniable regularity. Either living in a strict environment (school? prison?) or maintaining long-term records about something important.
I think an extended period of working with your hands helps. Do some projects where you’re interacting with agentless reality. Garden. Build a fence. Fix your car. The fewer words involved, the better.
Yes, recently.
Nice, thanks. It’s what I’d expect.
I’m thinking further, and considering the general priors for trust that the kids walk into the room with. I can somewhat see the problem with my own behavior. Lacking trust, you take the marshmallow in the hand, instead of the two in a contingent trustworthy future.
It reminds me of some “children of alcoholics” book I read once. It said that alcoholics often make promises to their children that they later do not fulfill. And then those children have long-term problem with trust and self-discipline, even decades later.
If that is true, I would expect such children to do worse in the Marshmallow test and to have worse outcomes later in life.
That was the kind of thing I was getting at.
The flip side of the unreliable parent is the French Parent—I bought some book about French parenting as compared to US parenting to give to a friend. The basic thrust was that the parent, when it came to discipline, should be something like a force of nature. Sure, swift, serene, no bargaining, no upset. Caring, but imperturbable. This is the way it is. You do this, this happens. Gravity, with a hug.
Which leads me to a very disturbing thought. At first, I thought a test to differentiate trust in people versus self discipline was possible. Factor the person out of the marshmallow scenario, and see how the kids do.
But that doesn’t really prove anything. What if trust is learned as a whole, when young? Your parents are a force of nature. They are the universe, when you’re a baby. If they’re capricious, unpredictable, and worse, malevolent, then that’s your emotional estimate of the universe. It’s not that you don’t have self discipline, it’s that you live in a malevolent, unpredictable universe that you rightly don’t trust. Or so it seems to you.
It would be interesting to correlate parental behavior and one’s picture of God. Maybe that feeling of God some people have is the psychic after image of how the universe, mainly through mom and dad, appeared to them when young.
Yes. People bring many aliefs from their childhood; predictability of the universe is probably one of them.
If your model says that one marshmallow is sure, but two marshmallows have probability smaller than 50%, then choosing one is better. If your model says that you cannot trust anything, including yourself, then following short-term pleasures is better than following long-term goals.
How can this model be fixed? It would probably require a long-term exposure to some undeniable regularity. Either living in a strict environment (school? prison?) or maintaining long-term records about something important.
I think an extended period of working with your hands helps. Do some projects where you’re interacting with agentless reality. Garden. Build a fence. Fix your car. The fewer words involved, the better.