|
The Marshmallow Experiment -- self-control and success (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| Didn't Skinner propose something like gehz's interpretion, but in a more utopian fashion? |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Well, at least higher-performing, if not exactly "smarter." |
Good point.
And why do intellectuals have to explain a very simple concept, with a massive drawn out article? Why can't they just say it, in less words, and present the data. Smart people, such as us, are going to pickup on the fact that it is a simple concept, and since we are the only ones reading it anyways, all the mumbo-jumbo doesn't matter. Not that everything is so simple, or simplified, but you get the point. I literally summarized that whole article in 21 words, not 1000. |
|
|
| Lira |
Yup, that's what I had in mind (that was just a hook so I could get some discussion going on, hehehe). Have you (or someone else here) read it?
A friend of mine told me about this book a few years ago, but neither of us have had the time to actually read the whole thing :p |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Never read it, but I know the basic ideas. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Never read it, but I know the basic ideas. |
Yeah, that's pretty much all I know as well. From what I've read/studied, Skinner seems to have been a brilliant guy, and I wish I had the time to actually read some of his work thoroughly (in spite of how Chomsky flamed him). |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
So they are basically saying that coupled with positive reinforcement and self-control, we can mold the human population to be smart. lol |
Even if we could, it might not be a good idea. Suppose, for example, we were able to mold the human population to pursue wealth effectively. Obviously, people would have to shed their impulse-buying habits, greatly reduce unnecessary consumption, and instead try to invest in assets that will produce a return. But what if everyone changed their behavior in this way?
Well, in the first place, many millions of jobs are dependent on the high level of consumerism that exists presently. Without the irresponsible behavior of those consumers, the industries that depend on them would collapse, and the people employed by them would be let go with no commensurate increase in employment opportunities in other sectors, at least in the short term. Even with the right plan for wealth-accumulation, these people would not have a chance at "success" because they wouldn't have any income with which to begin accumulating assets.
At the same time, the value of those assets least-affected by the previous outcome would skyrocket due to a massive increase in demand, to the great benefit of those who already hold them (the wealthy), but to the great detriment of anyone trying to accumulate wealth, since the barrier to entry would become much higher as assets generally became more coveted. As a result, class mobility would decrease significantly between the wealthy class and the middle/lower classes.
So what you would have is a large group of individuals who know what to do to succeed financially, but it is no longer possible because their very enlightenment itself slammed the door shut on the possibility. Granted, a more gradual change would mitigate these effects to some degree, but it would still cause many difficulties -- not to mention that it creates the problem of trying to decide who gets this advantage immediately and who must wait.
It is likely we would see similar problems arise in other areas if we attempt to "cure" people of their faults. Ideas like "equality" are naive because they assume that society functions best when each person is equal. But the truth is that a durable, efficient, society is probably not going to arise from that sort of a formula. To make an analogy to biology, it would be like trying to construct a living human being out of identical cells -- that's not possible. Different cells are needed in different proportions, organized in a specific way, in order to facilitate different functions; the result is an organism that functions well. Maybe amongst cells no one wants to be a part of the lining of the large intestine, but converting those cells into neurons is not going to make for a more capable organism. Trying to make every human being in a society into a "successful" person is also not likely to make for an effective society. |
|
|
| barbina |
This test fails
I would have lasted for hours.. I hate marshmallows
.. but I did pretty well on my SATs.. but yeah .. hmmm. forgot where I was going with this
Well.. off to bed : ) |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well, in the first place, many millions of jobs are dependent on the high level of consumerism that exists presently. Without the irresponsible behavior of those consumers, the industries that depend on them would collapse, and the people employed by them would be let go with no commensurate increase in employment opportunities in other sectors, at least in the short term. Even with the right plan for wealth-accumulation, these people would not have a chance at "success" because they wouldn't have any income with which to begin accumulating assets. |
Yeah, the famous "too much savings" problem. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
. |
Totally agree with this. The dynamics of advocating and implementing this, would be so different, affect so many things, and create a totally different monster, it wouldn't be any better than what we have now. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| I prefer the other study where the kids were told they werent allowed to eat the lollies until the person came back into the room. Those that ate the lollies anyway and then lied about it when questioned tended to be smarter than the other children. Ha. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I prefer the other study where the kids were told they werent allowed to eat the lollies until the person came back into the room. Those that ate the lollies anyway and then lied about it when questioned tended to be smarter than the other children. Ha. |
LOL |
|
|
|
|
