Well. The boy from 05:20 actually did wait. Zimbardo never said the boy had to wait WITH EATING. The boy simply waited for Zimbardo to get back and in the meanwhile he ate the chocolate. The boy didn't understand the (somewhat vague) question.
I remember really appreciating Zimbardo’s research as a student of psychology and he is clearly amused and impressed by each child’s coping strategy. What he misses here is that children at this stage of development are literal and concrete. Nuances are typically lost on them.
But awareness of concepts like "literal" vs "nuance" are a critical and crucial development at that age. Did you say that you were a Developmental Psychologist?
Instructions given: "if you wait you can have two" ...they all WAITED ...some just ate the marshmallow while they waited for him to return. Experimenter needs to learn accurate language. Many of these marshmallow experiments have similarly misleading instructions. Funny how animation at end poses the question differently (accurately). Actual conclusion to this experiment: Teach kids at home.
This experience tells you that the success you are. It was destined for you . You do not have to be arrogant and brag about what has been destined for you, meaning that you have the tools for success since birth This, in my opinion, has some validity. As for what is true
I feel like this can be taught. More than likely, not trusting the person asking the kid to wait would make them eat the candy early. Never lie to you kids. Never act like they should here the truth. Trust in parents and good parenting is the take away for me.
I agree with those saying the rules weren't made clear. I was listening to him vaguely explaining the rules, waiting for what transpired to happen; the kid thinking "I waited, WTF?!". What hasn't been mentioned (in the few comments I read), is that the excitement of the marshmallow may have caused the kid to 'tune out', stressing the need to properly explain the rules and even ask the kid to explain them. Perhaps the rules should have been given first, before showing them the prize, too? Just my humble opinion. Something else that might be relevant, I used to shoot corporate video for a living and have worked with others who often cut corners to get the shots they need: Crude example, "We've bought these random kids in to shoot some cut-away shots (to make your interview more interesting), just reenact the experiment, fake it; it's your words that are important."
What's even more powerful is this moment probably stuck with some of those kids and could of potentially had a powerful impact and imprint on their lives. Either way you chop it, *this is Powerful*
It might be that the little boy with the skull shirt didn't make the causal link between the things that Zimbardo wanted him to make... He just made a connection between waiting and getting a second chocolate rather than waiting AND not eating, and getting a second chocolate
and i think that was a problem with the wording.. if he had said "if you DON'T eat this and wait for me to come back, I'll give you another one, but if you eat it then I won't give you another one." He should make sure the kid understands what the condition is rather than leave it as an open ended causal relationship for the kid to understand on his own
besides.. if this kid was any smarter he could've said.. "But you said 'if you wait I'll give you two' ".. Zimbardo didn't emphasize on "wait UNTIL i get back" the kid was thinking about the chocolate and distracted by it.. so if he wanted him to understand, he should've said what he said slower and emphasized "wait UNTIL i get back"
I cant agree with you as you can listen the first girl respond Ill wait =). However you can see to boy who eat the chocolate, he wasn't listened the instructions, his hand was over the chocolate even before Zimbardo finished the instructions. Like this are millions of people out side. =)
Everyone is disagreeing with the experiment saying it was flawed yet clearly there were examples in the video youre choosing to ignore like the girl who ate the marshmallow. You conviently ignore that and only focus on the boy by saying he didnt understand.
The tester is wrong. I watched this twice. He does not explain clearly. His data is garbage. If they sat in the chair they "waited". These were bad instructions. Perhaps this guy should get a job writing instructions for products made in Asia.....
Well. The boy from 05:20 actually did wait. Zimbardo never said the boy had to wait WITH EATING. The boy simply waited for Zimbardo to get back and in the meanwhile he ate the chocolate. The boy didn't understand the (somewhat vague) question.
Cope.
Women are full of excuses because they have differential consequences.
Azra kohen kitap kulübünden gelenler 😜
:)
I remember really appreciating Zimbardo’s research as a student of psychology and he is clearly amused and impressed by each child’s coping strategy. What he misses here is that children at this stage of development are literal and concrete. Nuances are typically lost on them.
But awareness of concepts like "literal" vs "nuance" are a critical and crucial development at that age.
Did you say that you were a Developmental Psychologist?
Instructions given: "if you wait you can have two" ...they all WAITED ...some just ate the marshmallow while they waited for him to return. Experimenter needs to learn accurate language. Many of these marshmallow experiments have similarly misleading instructions. Funny how animation at end poses the question differently (accurately). Actual conclusion to this experiment: Teach kids at home.
This was just a summary. The same stidy could be performed in the inner city but women would cry about that too.
It's a problem with the wording
This experience tells you that the success you are. It was destined for you
. You do not have to be arrogant and brag about what has been destined for you, meaning that you have the tools for success since birth
This, in my opinion, has some validity. As for what is true
I feel like this can be taught. More than likely, not trusting the person asking the kid to wait would make them eat the candy early. Never lie to you kids. Never act like they should here the truth. Trust in parents and good parenting is the take away for me.
I agree with those saying the rules weren't made clear. I was listening to him vaguely explaining the rules, waiting for what transpired to happen; the kid thinking "I waited, WTF?!". What hasn't been mentioned (in the few comments I read), is that the excitement of the marshmallow may have caused the kid to 'tune out', stressing the need to properly explain the rules and even ask the kid to explain them. Perhaps the rules should have been given first, before showing them the prize, too? Just my humble opinion.
Something else that might be relevant, I used to shoot corporate video for a living and have worked with others who often cut corners to get the shots they need: Crude example, "We've bought these random kids in to shoot some cut-away shots (to make your interview more interesting), just reenact the experiment, fake it; it's your words that are important."
What's even more powerful is this moment probably stuck with some of those kids and could of potentially had a powerful impact and imprint on their lives.
Either way you chop it, *this is Powerful*
It might be that the little boy with the skull shirt didn't make the causal link between the things that Zimbardo wanted him to make... He just made a connection between waiting and getting a second chocolate rather than waiting AND not eating, and getting a second chocolate
and i think that was a problem with the wording.. if he had said "if you DON'T eat this and wait for me to come back, I'll give you another one, but if you eat it then I won't give you another one." He should make sure the kid understands what the condition is rather than leave it as an open ended causal relationship for the kid to understand on his own
besides.. if this kid was any smarter he could've said.. "But you said 'if you wait I'll give you two' ".. Zimbardo didn't emphasize on "wait UNTIL i get back" the kid was thinking about the chocolate and distracted by it.. so if he wanted him to understand, he should've said what he said slower and emphasized "wait UNTIL i get back"
Amal Al-Haidari totally agree, you have to make things more especific for children to understand.
best
This is all wrong...he was super confusing with his language. The irony from the man who campaigned against coerced convictions in the 70s 😂
I cant agree with you as you can listen the first girl respond Ill wait =). However you can see to boy who eat the chocolate, he wasn't listened the instructions, his hand was over the chocolate even before Zimbardo finished the instructions. Like this are millions of people out side. =)
Own ammn ednella enik nodak anda
It's not ok for emergency situation !
in't it ?
Ce n'est pas valable en cas d'urgence !
N'est-ce pas ?
;-)
Everyone is disagreeing with the experiment saying it was flawed yet clearly there were examples in the video youre choosing to ignore like the girl who ate the marshmallow. You conviently ignore that and only focus on the boy by saying he didnt understand.
The tester is wrong. I watched this twice. He does not explain clearly. His data is garbage. If they sat in the chair they "waited". These were bad instructions. Perhaps this guy should get a job writing instructions for products made in Asia.....