Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32
  1. #1
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    34,017

    These kids today...

    ...appear more patient than kids fifty years ago.

    The "marshmallow test," replicated:

    "Kids today. The phrase is usually followed by eye-rolling and words like self-absorbed, impatient and entitled. But the idea that today’s children need immediate gratification turns out to be wrong. In fact, research published last month in the journal Developmental Psychology shows that they are much more patient than kids were 50 years ago.

    Yes, you read that correctly. Twenty-first century children are able to wait longer for a reward than children of the same age a generation ago, and a generation before that. The new study shows that today’s preschoolers are better at what psychologists call self-regulation, which is the conscious control of one’s immediate desires—the ability to hold off and wait until the time is right.

    Stephanie Carlson, the lead author of the paper and a professor at the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Child Development, knows that her findings will come as a surprise: 'The implicit assumption is that there’s no way that kids can delay. They’re used to being gratified immediately and don’t know what it’s like to be bored anymore.'

    But faithful re-enactments of the famous 'marshmallow experiment' have upended that notion. The experiment was first designed in 1968 by Walter Mischel of Stanford University, with the participation of 165 children between ages 3 and 5 who were attending the university’s Bing Preschool. The set up was simple: Each child was left alone in a quiet room facing two plates of goodies. One plate held a single treat—one Oreo cookie or one marshmallow, for example—while the other plate had two.

    The children were then told that the adult needed to leave “to do some work” but would return immediately if the child rang a bell. If that happened, the child was allowed to eat one treat. But if the child waited until the adult came back without being summoned, they could eat the larger portion. Watching through a one-way mirror, the experimenters saw whether the child licked or ate the treats while they waited, or controlled themselves until the researcher returned.

    According to Dr. Carlson’s new paper, the same experiment was replicated in the 1980s, with 135 children attending the Toddler Center at Columbia University, and once again in the 2000s, with 540 children at preschools associated with the University of Washington and the University of Minnesota. As it turns out, preschoolers in this millennium were able to wait about seven minutes on average, one minute longer than preschoolers in the 1980s and two minutes longer than children in the 1960s. Over a span of 50 years, children of the same age were essentially getting better and better at controlling their impulses.

    What accounts for this surprising development? 'We’re trying to understand what changed…so that kids of similar backgrounds have increased their ability to delay gratification, despite expectations,' Dr. Carlson said. Improvements in nutrition and GDP might have had the effect of expanding children’s opportunities and cognitive horizons.

    Parenting has also evolved. Contrary to popular belief, parents are spending more time interacting with their children than they used to. In the mid-60s, parents spent an average of 36 minutes a day teaching and playing with their children. By 1998, that figure had more than doubled, to 78 minutes a day. Parents have also become more focused on cultivating a child’s ability to make decisions for themselves. Perhaps most important is that, compared with 1968, many times more 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool, and their teachers are better educated than ever before.

    Important questions remain about the study’s findings. The children at the university preschools were mostly from white, educated, middle-to-upper class families. Their self-control is getting better all the time. But it remains to be seen if children from other backgrounds are also learning the crucial lesson that good things come to those who wait.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/kids-to...hp_featst_pos2
    More Americans wanted Hillary Clinton to be President than wanted Donald Trump.

    Donald Trump has never had a wife he didn't cheat on.

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    11,725
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    ...appear more patient than kids fifty years ago.

    The "marshmallow test," replicated:

    "Kids today. The phrase is usually followed by eye-rolling and words like self-absorbed, impatient and entitled. But the idea that today’s children need immediate gratification turns out to be wrong. In fact, research published last month in the journal Developmental Psychology shows that they are much more patient than kids were 50 years ago.

    Yes, you read that correctly. Twenty-first century children are able to wait longer for a reward than children of the same age a generation ago, and a generation before that. The new study shows that today’s preschoolers are better at what psychologists call self-regulation, which is the conscious control of one’s immediate desires—the ability to hold off and wait until the time is right.

    Stephanie Carlson, the lead author of the paper and a professor at the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Child Development, knows that her findings will come as a surprise: 'The implicit assumption is that there’s no way that kids can delay. They’re used to being gratified immediately and don’t know what it’s like to be bored anymore.'

    But faithful re-enactments of the famous 'marshmallow experiment' have upended that notion. The experiment was first designed in 1968 by Walter Mischel of Stanford University, with the participation of 165 children between ages 3 and 5 who were attending the university’s Bing Preschool. The set up was simple: Each child was left alone in a quiet room facing two plates of goodies. One plate held a single treat—one Oreo cookie or one marshmallow, for example—while the other plate had two.

    The children were then told that the adult needed to leave “to do some work” but would return immediately if the child rang a bell. If that happened, the child was allowed to eat one treat. But if the child waited until the adult came back without being summoned, they could eat the larger portion. Watching through a one-way mirror, the experimenters saw whether the child licked or ate the treats while they waited, or controlled themselves until the researcher returned.

    According to Dr. Carlson’s new paper, the same experiment was replicated in the 1980s, with 135 children attending the Toddler Center at Columbia University, and once again in the 2000s, with 540 children at preschools associated with the University of Washington and the University of Minnesota. As it turns out, preschoolers in this millennium were able to wait about seven minutes on average, one minute longer than preschoolers in the 1980s and two minutes longer than children in the 1960s. Over a span of 50 years, children of the same age were essentially getting better and better at controlling their impulses.

    What accounts for this surprising development? 'We’re trying to understand what changed…so that kids of similar backgrounds have increased their ability to delay gratification, despite expectations,' Dr. Carlson said. Improvements in nutrition and GDP might have had the effect of expanding children’s opportunities and cognitive horizons.

    Parenting has also evolved. Contrary to popular belief, parents are spending more time interacting with their children than they used to. In the mid-60s, parents spent an average of 36 minutes a day teaching and playing with their children. By 1998, that figure had more than doubled, to 78 minutes a day. Parents have also become more focused on cultivating a child’s ability to make decisions for themselves. Perhaps most important is that, compared with 1968, many times more 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool, and their teachers are better educated than ever before.

    Important questions remain about the study’s findings. The children at the university preschools were mostly from white, educated, middle-to-upper class families. Their self-control is getting better all the time. But it remains to be seen if children from other backgrounds are also learning the crucial lesson that good things come to those who wait.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/kids-to...hp_featst_pos2
    angry old white men really does come down to their childhood then?
    Blows your hair back.

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    25,293
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    ...appear more patient than kids fifty years ago.

    The "marshmallow test," replicated:

    "Kids today. The phrase is usually followed by eye-rolling and words like self-absorbed, impatient and entitled. But the idea that today’s children need immediate gratification turns out to be wrong. In fact, research published last month in the journal Developmental Psychology shows that they are much more patient than kids were 50 years ago.

    Yes, you read that correctly. Twenty-first century children are able to wait longer for a reward than children of the same age a generation ago, and a generation before that. The new study shows that today’s preschoolers are better at what psychologists call self-regulation, which is the conscious control of one’s immediate desires—the ability to hold off and wait until the time is right.

    Stephanie Carlson, the lead author of the paper and a professor at the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Child Development, knows that her findings will come as a surprise: 'The implicit assumption is that there’s no way that kids can delay. They’re used to being gratified immediately and don’t know what it’s like to be bored anymore.'

    But faithful re-enactments of the famous 'marshmallow experiment' have upended that notion. The experiment was first designed in 1968 by Walter Mischel of Stanford University, with the participation of 165 children between ages 3 and 5 who were attending the university’s Bing Preschool. The set up was simple: Each child was left alone in a quiet room facing two plates of goodies. One plate held a single treat—one Oreo cookie or one marshmallow, for example—while the other plate had two.

    The children were then told that the adult needed to leave “to do some work” but would return immediately if the child rang a bell. If that happened, the child was allowed to eat one treat. But if the child waited until the adult came back without being summoned, they could eat the larger portion. Watching through a one-way mirror, the experimenters saw whether the child licked or ate the treats while they waited, or controlled themselves until the researcher returned.

    According to Dr. Carlson’s new paper, the same experiment was replicated in the 1980s, with 135 children attending the Toddler Center at Columbia University, and once again in the 2000s, with 540 children at preschools associated with the University of Washington and the University of Minnesota. As it turns out, preschoolers in this millennium were able to wait about seven minutes on average, one minute longer than preschoolers in the 1980s and two minutes longer than children in the 1960s. Over a span of 50 years, children of the same age were essentially getting better and better at controlling their impulses.

    What accounts for this surprising development? 'We’re trying to understand what changed…so that kids of similar backgrounds have increased their ability to delay gratification, despite expectations,' Dr. Carlson said. Improvements in nutrition and GDP might have had the effect of expanding children’s opportunities and cognitive horizons.

    Parenting has also evolved. Contrary to popular belief, parents are spending more time interacting with their children than they used to. In the mid-60s, parents spent an average of 36 minutes a day teaching and playing with their children. By 1998, that figure had more than doubled, to 78 minutes a day. Parents have also become more focused on cultivating a child’s ability to make decisions for themselves. Perhaps most important is that, compared with 1968, many times more 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool, and their teachers are better educated than ever before.

    Important questions remain about the study’s findings. The children at the university preschools were mostly from white, educated, middle-to-upper class families. Their self-control is getting better all the time. But it remains to be seen if children from other backgrounds are also learning the crucial lesson that good things come to those who wait.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/kids-to...hp_featst_pos2
    So we're dealing with an educational elite giving their pre-schoolers the best. Largely a different story in poor families struggling to make ends meet and competing for attention.

    Interesting study, though. Encouraging the very young to analyze problems and find logical solutions, appropriate when introducing language to them through reading books, is a central theme of Montessori. Pre-school also teaches interactive social skills at a more impressionable age.

    On top of that, parents dutifully drive to school to pick up their kids today, while back in the 60s grade school kids walked home from school. Parents may be more involved with their kids, but the downside is they may be over-directing their kids and making them afraid to think for themselves. Then when they grow up, they seek authoritarian rule.

    And then there's "Mister Rogers Neighborhood." A major influence on pre-schoolers!
    Last edited by Fredrico; 07-12-2018 at 09:14 PM.

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: jimb100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    ...appear more patient than kids fifty years ago.

    The "marshmallow test," replicated:

    "Kids today. The phrase is usually followed by eye-rolling and words like self-absorbed, impatient and entitled. But the idea that today’s children need immediate gratification turns out to be wrong. In fact, research published last month in the journal Developmental Psychology shows that they are much more patient than kids were 50 years ago.

    Yes, you read that correctly. Twenty-first century children are able to wait longer for a reward than children of the same age a generation ago, and a generation before that. The new study shows that today’s preschoolers are better at what psychologists call self-regulation, which is the conscious control of one’s immediate desires—the ability to hold off and wait until the time is right.

    Stephanie Carlson, the lead author of the paper and a professor at the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Child Development, knows that her findings will come as a surprise: 'The implicit assumption is that there’s no way that kids can delay. They’re used to being gratified immediately and don’t know what it’s like to be bored anymore.'

    But faithful re-enactments of the famous 'marshmallow experiment' have upended that notion. The experiment was first designed in 1968 by Walter Mischel of Stanford University, with the participation of 165 children between ages 3 and 5 who were attending the university’s Bing Preschool. The set up was simple: Each child was left alone in a quiet room facing two plates of goodies. One plate held a single treat—one Oreo cookie or one marshmallow, for example—while the other plate had two.

    The children were then told that the adult needed to leave “to do some work” but would return immediately if the child rang a bell. If that happened, the child was allowed to eat one treat. But if the child waited until the adult came back without being summoned, they could eat the larger portion. Watching through a one-way mirror, the experimenters saw whether the child licked or ate the treats while they waited, or controlled themselves until the researcher returned.

    According to Dr. Carlson’s new paper, the same experiment was replicated in the 1980s, with 135 children attending the Toddler Center at Columbia University, and once again in the 2000s, with 540 children at preschools associated with the University of Washington and the University of Minnesota. As it turns out, preschoolers in this millennium were able to wait about seven minutes on average, one minute longer than preschoolers in the 1980s and two minutes longer than children in the 1960s. Over a span of 50 years, children of the same age were essentially getting better and better at controlling their impulses.

    What accounts for this surprising development? 'We’re trying to understand what changed…so that kids of similar backgrounds have increased their ability to delay gratification, despite expectations,' Dr. Carlson said. Improvements in nutrition and GDP might have had the effect of expanding children’s opportunities and cognitive horizons.

    Parenting has also evolved. Contrary to popular belief, parents are spending more time interacting with their children than they used to. In the mid-60s, parents spent an average of 36 minutes a day teaching and playing with their children. By 1998, that figure had more than doubled, to 78 minutes a day. Parents have also become more focused on cultivating a child’s ability to make decisions for themselves. Perhaps most important is that, compared with 1968, many times more 3- and 4-year-olds are in preschool, and their teachers are better educated than ever before.

    Important questions remain about the study’s findings. The children at the university preschools were mostly from white, educated, middle-to-upper class families. Their self-control is getting better all the time. But it remains to be seen if children from other backgrounds are also learning the crucial lesson that good things come to those who wait.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/kids-to...hp_featst_pos2
    A very limited sample both in terms of who was tested and the results.

    A bit of a sad outcome, really. Children more willing to follow orders.

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: DaveWC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,410
    Quote Originally Posted by jimb100 View Post
    A bit of a sad outcome, really. Children more willing to follow orders.
    The children were then told that the adult needed to leave “to do some work” but would return immediately if the child rang a bell. If that happened, the child was allowed to eat one treat. But if the child waited until the adult came back without being summoned, they could eat the larger portion.

    What exactly were the orders given to the children? Looks to me like they were given a choice between 2 behaviors and the outcome of each behavior. It's like telling a young adult if they save 10% of their pay each month they should be financially able to retire at a relatively young age but if they spend everything that they earn, they'll have to work their entire life. I see decisions & outcomes, you see orders. Sad really.

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    25,293
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveWC View Post
    The children were then told that the adult needed to leave “to do some work” but would return immediately if the child rang a bell. If that happened, the child was allowed to eat one treat. But if the child waited until the adult came back without being summoned, they could eat the larger portion.

    What exactly were the orders given to the children? Looks to me like they were given a choice between 2 behaviors and the outcome of each behavior. It's like telling a young adult if they save 10% of their pay each month they should be financially able to retire at a relatively young age but if they spend everything that they earn, they'll have to work their entire life. I see decisions & outcomes, you see orders. Sad really.
    The poor kid is conditioned like a rat for the desired result: get both prizes if he waits, obediently following orders, the second prize carrot dangling before him. So he goes, "Yeah! I'll sure wait to get that second carrot, you bet."

    The instructor should give the kid reasons to be satisfied with one "treat" of oral gratification. Instead, he sets the kid up for expectations of more if he waits for mommy to decide his fate.

    So the kid gets fat and his teeth go bad. The American way.

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by jimb100 View Post
    A very limited sample both in terms of who was tested and the results.

    A bit of a sad outcome, really. Children more willing to follow orders.
    Explain please...

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    25,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    The poor kid is conditioned like a rat for the desired result: get both prizes if he waits, obediently following orders, the second prize carrot dangling before him. So he goes, "Yeah! I'll sure wait to get that second carrot, you bet."
    Conditioning requires more than one trial, for non-traumatic stimuli at least.

    No, maybe you could conceptualize it as the result of previous conditioning, but even that leads to issues, like from economic class. Is it rational to trust adults about future events? If all promises have been kept, sure. But how many poor kids are promised things in the future that don't pan out? "We'll go out for pizza this weekend... sorry the toilet broke so we can't get pizza, maybe next month".

    I think this is one of the more interesting things about the marshmallow experiment, that what was assumed to be the better behavior can be seen quite differently given life experiences full of fulfilled or broken promises from adults.
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  9. #9
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    34,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    So we're dealing with an educational elite giving their pre-schoolers the best. Largely a different story in poor families struggling to make ends meet and competing for attention....
    I trust you leveled this criticism at the original Mischel studies, which were also done on a similar demographic?

    I don't think the blue-nosed "See, personal character matters, and it's culturally taught!" crowd that ran with those studies as justification for victim-blaming and taking whacks at social program funding made such a realization, though.
    More Americans wanted Hillary Clinton to be President than wanted Donald Trump.

    Donald Trump has never had a wife he didn't cheat on.

  10. #10
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    34,017
    Quote Originally Posted by jimb100 View Post
    A very limited sample both in terms of who was tested and the results....

    I trust you leveled this criticism at the original Mischel studies, which were also done on a similar demographic?

    I don't think the blue-nosed "See, personal character matters, and it's culturally taught!" crowd that ran with those studies as justification for victim-blaming and taking whacks at social program funding made such a realization, though.
    More Americans wanted Hillary Clinton to be President than wanted Donald Trump.

    Donald Trump has never had a wife he didn't cheat on.

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: jimb100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    Explain please...

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
    Explain what?

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by jimb100 View Post
    Explain what?
    What in this article made you interpret the point as "kids are more willing to follow orders" ?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: jimb100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl View Post
    I trust you leveled this criticism at the original Mischel studies, which were also done on a similar demographic?

    I don't think the blue-nosed "See, personal character matters, and it's culturally taught!" crowd that ran with those studies as justification for victim-blaming and taking whacks at social program funding made such a realization, though.
    In physics you cannot know the exact 'position' of an electron. To detect the position you must illuminate the electron and in so doing, the electron moves to a higher energy state.

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: jimb100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    What in this article made you interpret the point as "kids are more willing to follow orders" ?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
    The words "Twenty first century kids are willing to wait longer"

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by jimb100 View Post
    The words "Twenty first century kids are willing to wait longer"
    They were given the choice to wait or not.


    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    34,017
    Quote Originally Posted by jimb100 View Post
    In physics you cannot know the exact 'position' of an electron. To detect the position you must illuminate the electron and in so doing, the electron moves to a higher energy state.
    I'm sure Heisenberg's spirit is grateful for that explanation, regardless of it's not being relevant here.

    Again, I trust you leveled your earlier criticism (re sample characteristics) at the original Mischel studies, which were also done on a similar demographic?

    I don't think the blue-nosed "See, personal character matters, and it's culturally taught!" crowd that ran with those studies as justification for victim-blaming and taking whacks at social program funding made such a realization, though.
    More Americans wanted Hillary Clinton to be President than wanted Donald Trump.

    Donald Trump has never had a wife he didn't cheat on.

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Christine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    15,353
    On top of that, parents dutifully drive to school to pick up their kids today, while back in the 60s grade school kids walked home from school.

    This comment is being overlooked. Kids back then were calorie-deficient! Portion sizes were smaller, and they were exercising constantly.

    Now, the kids probably had a bowlful of marshmallows and oreos in the SUV on the way over to the lab. And a Coke in the waiting room.

    Also, the kids probably had a phone to fiddle with while waiting.

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    11,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Christine View Post
    On top of that, parents dutifully drive to school to pick up their kids today, while back in the 60s grade school kids walked home from school.

    This comment is being overlooked. Kids back then were calorie-deficient! Portion sizes were smaller, and they were exercising constantly.

    Now, the kids probably had a bowlful of marshmallows and oreos in the SUV on the way over to the lab. And a Coke in the waiting room.

    Also, the kids probably had a phone to fiddle with while waiting.
    not only did they walk home. It was uphill in 20 feet of snow. In Sacramento, in May! In September is was still uphill but 110F and no shadow or water in sight.
    Blows your hair back.

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    25,293
    Quote Originally Posted by QuiQuaeQuod View Post
    Conditioning requires more than one trial, for non-traumatic stimuli at least.

    No, maybe you could conceptualize it as the result of previous conditioning, but even that leads to issues, like from economic class. Is it rational to trust adults about future events? If all promises have been kept, sure. But how many poor kids are promised things in the future that don't pan out? "We'll go out for pizza this weekend... sorry the toilet broke so we can't get pizza, maybe next month".

    I think this is one of the more interesting things about the marshmallow experiment, that what was assumed to be the better behavior can be seen quite differently given life experiences full of fulfilled or broken promises from adults.
    Sure, repetition is the name of the game with conditioning. The kids bring to the experiment what their parents already conditioned them to expect.

    The suburban middle class white kids I grew up with pretty much got what they wanted in secure family environments. The impoverished black kids in Longview I knew grew up sharing a fraction of the resources a middle class family throws around. They lived in the moment. Their dreams were more abstract than we white kids headed to college. They had little faith in promises or deferred satisfaction. They never respected each other's stuff. Private property was irrelevant in their family culture. So they would have less respect for those marshmallows.

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    25,293
    Quote Originally Posted by den bakker View Post
    not only did they walk home. It was uphill in 20 feet of snow. In Sacramento, in May! In September is was still uphill but 110F and no shadow or water in sight.
    Walked home in 1st grade in below freezing temperatures across a snow covered field in Montreal. Dress for it and keep walking, 20 minutes. Basic survival skill. Don't know about 110 F, but I'd guess the kids can handle it better than the parents. We're talking 5 blocks, not 2 hour hikes across town.

    The middle school kids in my neighborhood hang out at The Italian Store, a gourmet deli, slurp on ice cream cones and socialize before going home to dinner. That's how they become independent people who can deal with the world on their own terms. Its a part of growing up parents can very well retard, not to mention instill the authoritarian bent the kids will carry into adulthood.

    And yeah, walking home from school free of parental supervision was good for our health. Very few kids were overweight. Then again, we were growing like mad, so the calories got burned up pretty fast. "Calorie deficient, indeed!" .

    My Russian grandfather used to say, "Leave the dinner table wishing you ate just a little more, and you'll be healthy for the rest of your life." He died of a heart attack reading the newspaper, at age 85, otherwise "fit as a fiddle." Studies show eating slightly less than you want is indeed life prolonging. Europeans have been ahead on that score. Portions served up in American restaurants are another third the size of European portions. Every time I come back from Europe I'm shocked at how sweet American food is. Big Food addicted Americans to sugar. There's your "gateway drug."

  21. #21
    Sweet Potato Kugel
    Reputation: Eretz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    The poor kid is conditioned like a rat for the desired result: get both prizes if he waits, obediently following orders, the second prize carrot dangling before him. So he goes, "Yeah! I'll sure wait to get that second carrot, you bet."


    This is my next vote for president.
    In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
    Ben Franklin -Tis curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together
    -


  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by jimb100 View Post
    The words "Twenty first century kids are willing to wait longer"
    So what do you think? They could choose to wait or not, do you think what you said above is still valid?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by jimb100 View Post
    A very limited sample both in terms of who was tested and the results.

    A bit of a sad outcome, really. Children more willing to follow orders.
    So the researcher came to the opposite conclusion of you, I think because the kids could choose of they wanted the short term gain or bigger long term one.

    Do you think the researcher is wrong? Why?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: jimb100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    So the researcher came to the opposite conclusion of you, I think because the kids could choose of they wanted the short term gain or bigger long term one.

    Do you think the researcher is wrong? Why?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
    I think the act of formalized psychological affects the results.

    Why? You don't think so?

  25. #25
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    370
    What is "the act of formalized psychological"?
    Quote Originally Posted by jimb100 View Post
    I think the act of formalized psychological affects the results.

    Why? You don't think so?
    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-24-2017, 08:09 PM
  2. These kids today, I just don't get 'em...
    By xxl in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 11:52 AM
  3. kids having kids.... WTF....
    By randi_526 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 07-25-2009, 08:15 AM
  4. These HS kids today and their newfangled technology
    By innergel in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 01-31-2008, 06:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.