The Marshmallow Test: What Does It Really Measure?

Post by haihaibye » Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 10:28 PM UTC

TomMckenny wrote: post #279

haihaibye wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> rich tend to succeed and poor tend to fail regardless of whether the grab the marshmallow or not. We were talking about intelligence. The marshmallow test measures delayed gratification. >> If intelligence corresponds to wealth, we would expect Nobel prize winners and widely cited scientist to be the richest people. It's a correlation - so we'd expect them to be richer than average, and richer on average than dumb…

>and richer on average than dumber scientists ...but not the richest of all people. Nor do the richest people in the world tend to be great scientist, mathematicians, chess players, writers etc. Because intelligence can only shuffle you around in the class you inherit but only luck will get you out of it. Children born to carpenters will tend to become good carpenters because they get connections, learn skill and are…

> ..but not the richest of all people.

I said a correlation, not a correlation of 1.0

Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg etc are all very smart. Top 1% smart or better. I don't think that's a coincidence.

>> Nor do the richest people in the world tend to be great scientist, mathematicians, chess players, writers etc.

They dedicated their time and efforts to moneymaking rather than these pursuits.

Same as chess skills may correlate with mathematical ability but to be word class in either you have to dedicate your time to only one.

>> Because intelligence can only shuffle you around in the class you inherit but only luck will get you out of it.

What about scholarships? My Granfather repaired fences and shot kangaroos, my mum got top marks in school and won a scholarship, now I'm a scientist.

> point out above why this is impossible. If, for some reason, you decide this moment in history was the one to make the judgment on

Not what the data shows:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903117/

In the 60s China and Korea were African level poor, but they had high IQs. Is it a coincidence where smart phones are being built now?

> because it only had 90 subject rather than 900

A replication with much larger numbers found the effect, but with smaller magnitude. That's not bad.

Post by TomMckenny » Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 2:09 AM UTC

haihaibye wrote: post #281

TomMckenny wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and richer on average than dumber scientists ...but not the richest of all people. Nor do the richest people in the world tend to be great scientist, mathematicians, chess players, writers etc. Because intelligence can only shuffle you around in the class you inherit but only luck will get you out of it. Children born to carpenters will tend to become good carpenters because they get connections, learn skill and are…

> ..but not the richest of all people. I said a correlation, not a correlation of 1.0 Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg etc are all very smart. Top 1% smart or better. I don't think that's a coincidence. >> Nor do the richest people in the world tend to be great scientist, mathematicians, chess players, writers etc. They dedicated their time and efforts to moneymaking rather than these pursuits.…

>What about scholarships?

I believe scholarships are a nearly perfect indicator of intelligence. Self motivation toward education is certainly another. These things allow people to move from one part of their class to another. And by class I don't mean the ever shifting terms politicians use, I mean the very specific meaning when the term was coined: those who must work to survive vs those born never needing to.

>Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg

1% of the population is in the top 1% of intelligence. 0.02% of the population are billionaires. Clearly intelligence is a trivial factor for immense wealth.

For that list, some of the people you cite as smart were born to wealthy parents, others not. If we assume[1] they are intellectually in the top 1%, then this very list shows no correlation between inherited wealth and inherited brains.

Since the claim is that the rich pass down smart genes, we should look look at the top hereditary billionaires in the world and see if there is any evidence that they are all in the top 1% intellectually.

Is Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia super smart? How about Liliane Bettencourt, who does not even have hand in the business which makes her a billionaire. Or Georg Schaeffler who drove the company he inherited deeply in to debt. How about the wife of Steve Jobs.

Most relevant would be those who have been ultra rich for generations and only married other rich people: is Prince Charles among the smartest people in the world?

And the fact that rich Japanese adopt unrelated adults into the family who then run the business for the heirs. Obviously genes are irrelevant to wealth maintenance here.

>In the 60s China and Korea were African level poor, but they had high IQs

For that last several centuries, China's GDP was so low famines were a regular occurrence. Only in the last silver of history have they become rich. So obviously this has nothing to do with genetics but with changes to society both inside and outside China.

Re: The Marshmallow Test: What Does It Really Measure?

Re: The Marshmallow Test: What Does It Really Measure?