http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWW1vpz1ybo
Printable View
cool, heard about this but never saw footage
fyi i probably would've past this test but just because i didn't like marshmallows that much unless they were toasted
oh and cute kids, i'd hit 'em
personally i don't see anything particularly wrong with this
i'd elaborate, but honestly, i'm tired
there's nothing wrong with this.
it's just that we're such pussies with our children that if we do anything that doesn't gratify or "affirms" them then it's cruelty.
(yes yes i know i'm being unfair gwahir don't go all jew on me)
haha the title of this thread is happily ironic
i think the video is ADORABLE
Cute music, cute kids, and the kid that gets the prize is the total winner.
Because it was a lab test, though, all the kids were disposed of afterwards with a cyanide shot and a quick run through the incinerator.
that kid was my favourite throughout, and i felt actually rewarded to see him so gleefully stuff those marshmallows in his mouth at the endQuote:
Originally Posted by MalReynolds
Actually I'm pretty sure it is about mental development of a child. Prior to a certain age a child cannot distinguish gratification, much like it cannot distinguish or tell a lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by sycld
No, this experiment is about people who are able to delay gratification and thus are able, for example, to work hard towards their goals rather than having fun now.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
sycld are you thick or soemthing togs is totally rightQuote:
Originally Posted by sycld
are you really holding extremely young children to the same standards as people even just a few years older? the differences are astronomical
No dumbass, I read about this study before, or at least a very similar study.Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
As you apparently lack the cognitive ability to type "children marshmallow experiment" into a search engine and take a few minutes to read what's going on here before you start spewing your diarrhea stream of uneducated opinions, I've done it for you:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...rd_marshm.htmlQuote:
In one of the most amazing developmental studies ever conducted, Walter Michel of Stanford created a simple test of the ability of four year old children to control impulses and delay gratification. Children were taken one at a time into a room with a one-way mirror. They were shown a marshmallow. The experimenter told them he had to leave and that they could have the marshmallow right then, but if they waited for the experimenter to return from an errand, they could have two marshmallows.
...
The third of the children who were most impulsive at four years of age scored an average of 524 verbal and 528 math. The impulse controlled students who scored 610 verbal and 652 math! This astounding 210 point total score difference on the SAT was predicted on the basis of a single observation at four years of age!
Odd, I watched a Nova Doc and it essentially did the same thing.
Sycld, we are, simply enough, disagreeing about agreeing about the same thing. It's takes a more developed mind to understand the idea of gratification. It's still a child development study. It takes cognitive reasoning to understand the difference between 1 now or 2 later. While ages remain the same development is either retarded, accelerated or on par with the norm.
As much as I would love to simply take the study for its word, there are--in my opinion--too many external factors that weight on SAT scores.
It's an intelligence/development indicator, which (as is no surprise) is linked to being able to distinguish gratification now v. later.
I can either fuck you now, or fuck you later and give you the reach around
Well, yes, I wasn't being clear. It obviously is a child development study, but I just wanted to point out that personal gratification does come into this.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
Why do you think this is the primary reason behind the differences observed? What evidence is there for this from this experiment or elsewhere? Is it just because this is the model you agree with based on your prejudices to choose this interpretation?Quote:
It takes cognitive reasoning to understand the difference between 1 now or 2 later. While ages remain the same development is either retarded, accelerated or on par with the norm.
At the very least, if that IS true (in which case I would appreciate it if you could substantiate it further), it is not indicated by the study I have mentioned. All that was mentioned was a correlation between delaying gratification as a child and SAT scores later in life.
Sure, the link between the two may be complicated, but if there is a correlation between the two, then there IS a link. Argue against the statistics or method in the study, fine, but are you going to just going to dismiss the results based on the fact that it doesn't jive with your view of how things work?Quote:
As much as I would love to simply take the study for its word, there are--in my opinion--too many external factors that weight on SAT scores.
Also, coq was just have diarrhea of the mouth. That post wasn't directed towards you, TOGS.
No, my opinion is pretty much along the same lines - there's a lot of external developmental factors that can affect a test score later in life, and SAT scores aren't exactly indicitive of success in and of themselves (although generally, the get the job done). You got me, though, I didn't actually google anything about this, or realize that this was part of a greater demonstration where they link one instance of personal gratification and whether or not it's delayed (did they control for hunger, time, repeat the experiement to ensure consitent results? What were the families attitudes towards sweets and how often they were given or allowed?) and then 15 years down the road, a test. I'm sorry, there are too many smaller factors involved with the development of a small child in how their parents rear them that weren't explained, and it seems a little convenient to ignore the years of academic study and what aloowed them to pursue and succeed. I find the link hazya and skeptical, but something people would love to expound because, well, maybe they googled it after seeing a video?