« | Home | »

One Marshmallow or Two?

Tags: | | |

They’ve done a new version of a 1960s Stanford experiment. Sit a small child in a room with a marshmallow on a plate, and tell them that if they stay sitting in front of it and don’t eat it, they will get a second marshmallow when the experimenter comes back. Then leave the room and make sure a camera is trained on the kids.

Share their pain:

It begins to look like a test of how close you can get it to the inside of you, or how much of it you can actually put into your mouth, while still trying for the second marshmallow. One small girl, who is clearly hyper-conflicted, wins this contest hands down, but is in denial about what the experimenter is going to make of the resulting mess she puts back on the plate. She deserves not one, but two extra marshmallows, in my opinion, but then I rejoice in the barefaced challenge to authority.

Follow-ups from the original test have suggested that those who didn’t eat the marshmallow (who seem astonishingly to be in the majority in this clip) were more successful in later life than those who couldn’t wait. Something about strategy, realpolitik, and the old dreary wisdom that says maturity is about delayed gratification. Well, fair enough, control freaks, you may have a better job and more pay, have a hunkier husband and prize-winning children, and no doubt a pedigree pussy if you didn’t eat the first marshmallow and got the second one, too. But consider this as you stuff them both into your face: those who gobble the first marshmallow on the plate and let the second one go hang, not only forever get their pleasure when they want it and subvert the idiot rules life’s experimenters lay down, but they’re thinner.

Comments on “One Marshmallow or Two?”

  1. Thomas Jones says:

    It also looks like an exercise in tolerating boredom. There’s nothing to play with except the marshmallow. The more ‘successful’ people may simply be those who don’t mind being bored. And good luck to them.

    • Martin says:

      There’s also the plate. Never forget that children prefer the wrapping to the contents. Well, maybe not if the choice is between styrofoam and marshmallow, but in dire straits …

  2. alex stavrakas says:

    I’m sure you didn’t miss it, but just in case (from The New Yorker, May 18 issue): http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer

  3. jcclarkeru says:

    That is pure existential performance art…and I would suggest the pedigree pussy (if not the prize-winning life) probably belongs to the woman who would have eaten the marshmellow immediately, because chances are, if she waited to collect more, she’d never have eaten either of them. So much for delayed pleasure. It only wins you prizes, not necessarily satisfaction.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement