Talk:Stanford marshmallow experiment

Two nearly equals one without 15 minutes of boredom

This article lacks any consideration of the view that many children/people may consider that stuffing down two treats would be only slightly more enjoyable than scoffing one, and that spending 15 minutes in boredom is not enough to compensate for the slight extra pleasure. An extra marshmallow is not enough compensation for 15 minutes 'work'. Its not clear if all children had to, or knew they had to, wait 15 minutes even if they ate the marshmallow. 92.15.6.86 (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make? That the article doesn't explain various motivations of the children? That's not really relevant and would be speculation. What the article does say is that the children who eat the marshmallow immediately (including those, who as you say, think 15 minutes of boredom is not sufficient compensation) are going to generally have lower SAT scores and be considered less competent by their parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.106.215 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Could <> Would

The problem is that the use of the word 'could' in the article is an unwarranted assumption. It ignores the attitude "I could have waited, but I choose one now rather than two later" !

I haven't read the 'OR' - is the can't/won't confusion there in the original paper, or just as reported in this article ? ie confusing a psychological inability to wait (pathological ?) with a deliberate choice based on a value judgement (intelligence, reasoning)

I suspect the research is more objective, just showing a correlation, rather than the black/white cause/effect presentation in the media ? Just contrast the headlines in the References section !

Can children be trained to learn deferred gratification ? Dogs can be trained to balance a treat on their nose until permitted to eat it on command - see YouTube. It even works with a 'pretend treat', although the dog is probably rewarded for 'playing the game' anyway.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism for this experiment?

I'm not comfortable with the editing process, but I'd like to recommend this article which points towards some criticism of the experiment. Seeing as how it has become relatively infamous by now, it really ought to have some criticism included. Here's an article if any one is interested . Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidoqo (talk • contribs) 03:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the actual experiment isnt critized but rather leaping to the conclusion that children who 'pass' the test are always expected to be more succesful in life. 145.77.106.6 (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I worked back from the Daily Beast article to the 2006 study it cites and added that to the Followup Studies section. -- SpareSimian (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What other skills lead to better life outcomes?

This study identifies deferred gratification as one skill (or trait) that correlates with better life outcomes. What other skills correlate with better life outcomes? Are such skills the same as leadership skills, or does “better life outcomes” diverge from “leadership” and rely on a different set of skills? --Lbeaumont (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Racism

Can we rewrite the origins section of this to be a little more racially respectful. It seems like this was written by a bull in a china shop without consideration that in 1958 the prose of the original citation was written in a time of intense racism and oppression. 87.114.78.116 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)