Hacker News Reader

Comment by comboy | Hacker News Reader

Marshmallows represent different value for kids with different background. Some can have them every day, for some it's something they only saw other kids eating.

It's similar to how it would be easy to risk $50K for somebody with $100M net worth compared to somebody whose net worth is $100K.

View on HN

In general access to candy every day is something I see more at the low end of the income spectrum and less at the high end.

That may have changed quite a bit in the decades since the original study.

And thus sugar craving (addiction).

In general only small part of the test is really related to willpower. Friends tried the test on their children once - the marshmallow windfall "if you wait 1hour" just didn't happen [for an unplanned reason] , and thus the ones who took marshmallow right at the beggining won. The same reason why many take earlier smaller retirement.

> the marshmallow windfall "if you wait 1hour" just didn't happen ... The same reason why many take earlier smaller retirement.

Most people take a smaller retirement because they know they are going to die at some point. I hope that isn't what happened to you friend's children! :)

I grew up in a household without sugary cereals. My siblings and I would sing songs and dance with excitement when we had them. Socioeconomic status certainly explains the difference between cohorts, but perhaps it’s the easier signal to catch while the core mechanism is a matter of what is available in one’s household.

Yeah, I'm a little torn on this. The OP's claim makes sense on its face, but then I think about my own household, where we're solidly upper-middle class, and my wife and I refuse to keep sugary cereals (and most other junks like Doritos or candy, etc) in our cupboard.

My daughter has definitely experienced them at birthday parties and at her grandparents'. Would she have "willpower"? I'm leaning towards "yes" because her experience has been that she can rely on people. Perhaps a poor child is simply more likely to have unreliable caretakers, so there's less trust.

My mother grew up on a farm with eight siblings. For Christmas they would get a single apple in their stocking from Santa! My mother said everyone would be very excited. There was an an apple orchard on the farm.

Why did your parents seek to create a household which avoided sugary snacks? The fact is, that itself could be representative of the genetic predisposition towards self-control.

It was a health decision. For good or bad? It could be parents who don’t trust their self-control or who have a surplus of it and expect the same from their children.

It could also be indicative of poor self-control - if you know that buying the cereal means you'll eat it too quick, it's easier to avoid buying it than not eating it once you have it.

I'm not saying that's the case here, but self control can cut both ways.

>Marshmallows represent different value for kids with different background.

Or kids with different tastes. I liked candy and cookies as much as any other kid, I suppose, but I never much cared for marshmallows. For me to leave one sit there would not have required much strength of will.

I wonder why they didn't ask each kid what their absolute favorite candy or sweet treat in the world was, and use that for the test instead.

Reminds me of how I grew up wishing I could eat cereal and watch TV - at all.

It’s good to know that it’s my parents’ active decisions to shape how I think, and not something I can’t control like my innate willpower, which led me to be so successful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com