The prolonged study showed that children who used a coping mechanism did better, not just in waiting for the two marshmallows but also in life.

 Kids would do things like sing to themselves, or kick the table leg and they managed to wait out the timer.  Kids without these tools ate the marshmallow.

 The theory is that self control is as simple as creating an alternate activity.  There's a lot of information out there that supports this.

"Ja....and kids that kick the table leg, eat the other kids marshmallows, and then expect two when the person returns.....SO?"

 I'm not aware of any information about this as they never had the option of taking another person's marshmallow, however there's little evidence to suggest that kids that opted for physical coping methods were more likely to take things and request more than those that didn't.  

"I think the crux of the message is that  delayed gratification can bring us better results in achieving our true desires."

 The potential exists for sure, but what is the method?  Is it that some people are more self-disciplined than others naturally, and as such are genetically pre-destined to be more successful since they can delay gratification longer through naturally occurring chemical mixtures in their brain?

 Studies say no.  In most cases coping methods can be educated, which is what the marshmallow study originally showed us by displaying empirical evidence that any multitude of alternate activity can result in more marshmallows in the end.  

 

So where's the study that half that ate the marshmallows were taught coping skills and were fine?

"So where's the study that half that ate the marshmallows were taught coping skills and were fine? "

 There isn't one specific to the children in that particular test to my knowledge.  First we would need to define "fine" to see if any of them fit into those parameters.

 There is information about how programs like AA, general counseling, depression treatment etc. work by utilizing a system that utilizes a multitude of coping skillsets.  Many of those programs reference the Marshmallow Test due to its very simple presentation of a complex psychological component regarding our individual psychology.

Eegore wrote on 02/08/19 at 05:41:48:

 First we would need to define "fine" to see if any of them fit into those parameters.

No we don’t. As listed, the, ‘fine’, is just fine.
Just about everybody knows, what was meant by the original statement by verslagen1.
No need to pick it down to the smallest bone.

Think about it, who’s, ‘WE’ ?

If the individuals, me, you, raydawg, tt, bot, jog, etc, etc, etc, ………
made a definition, they all would be different.

If a, group of people got together and discussed and came to a agreement,
that definition would depend on if that, group, was left, right, ind, socialist, fascist, etc, etc, etc  …….

If a group of people got together,
and consisted of one person from each POV,
and they came up with a definition,
that would depend on which person/s,
were the strongest, or leaders.

So how 'fine', should the bone of, ‘fine’, be ?

"Think about it, who’s, ‘WE’ ?"

 In this case it would be specifically myself and Verslagen as it is his question posed.  Others who would want to contribute would be welcomed and as such the pool of input would increase by a volume of 1 per each person wanting to contribute.

"If the individuals, me, you, raydawg, tt, bot, jog, etc, etc, etc, ………
made a definition, they all would be different."

 Correct.  In this case my recommendation would be that each person provides a recommendation of what "fine" is for a male and female child that was in this specific study taking into account their age, and geographical location.  Each person could contribute their opinion of say economic status by income, or if the child had been incarcerated.

 Once these contributions are given we could average those numbers and come up with a given acceptable level of incarceration time or offense type, and minimum income required to meet the groups definition of "fine".  Any other factors such as religion, procreation, employment type, etc. should be included in the assessment.  Of course for that matter one could be homeless with no income and be "fine" however I would want to correlate that with geographical location and if possible a physical health assessment.

 This would require compromise among the contributors, something that is very rare here as people on this forum typically want to be right thus making others wrong.  

"So how 'fine', should the bone of, ‘fine’, be ?"

 As fine as the group decides in cooperative effort, you know, minus the personal attacks or denigration of others opinions.  The definition could be simple, or very complex.

"If a group of people got together,
and consisted of one person from each POV,
and they came up with a definition,
that would depend on which person/s,
were the strongest, or leaders."

 Or we could average out the contributions and use that instead of arguing over opinions.  

verslagen1 wrote on 02/11/19 at 07:37:16:


I think I get your drift......but I don't think that was the crux of the observation, just one element of showing how by our own input into a learning life through behavior modification can have desired outcomes ( now don't ask me to define desired   )

Back to the SAT testing anyway.....
It is a very subjective tool to use to test anyway....it is highly prejudice which is very limiting in scope.
But again, its just a tool, its what the results are used for, that can have adverse effects on the desired outcome.