this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
489 points (95.4% liked)

Comic Strips

17051 readers
1220 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 74 points 3 weeks ago

I would give you an upvote now, but I'd rather delay my gratification give you 2 later

[–] [email protected] 54 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The original experiment boils down to being a zip code test anyway

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Well, was it worth learning that about it?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Double-blind placebo controlled randomized skin color test

[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 104 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

"The Stanford marshmallow experiment was a study on delayed gratification in 1970 led by psychologist Walter Mischel, a professor at Stanford University.[1] In this study, a child was offered a choice between one small but immediate reward, or two small rewards if they waited for a period of time."

The joke is that in this version of the experiment, the child isn't being tested, the marshmallow is. And in this case, the marshmallow has decided to eat this one child instead of waiting until later, when it would have been allowed to eat two children.

[–] [email protected] 119 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Oh shit, I totally didn't see that the marshmallow was biting the kid. The image is so small it looked like a power outlet behind him on the wall

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 weeks ago

Same, was confused until I zoomed in.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Same! Man this really needs an edit where the marshmallow is biting from there opposite side of his arm.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago

Thanks. I didn't see the marshmallow chewing on the kids arm till I read this then zoomed in. Lol

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

I always found this study to be lacking...

5 minutes is not worth 1 marshmallow. Marshmallows are not that good, so one is way enough. As a kid, I could never trust adults who wanted to limit good things. Who's to say the strange adult in a white coat would really bring a 2nd marshmallow? What if they actually remove the marshmallow instead?

In short, it can only separate kids in two groups: the blind followers of authority and the other ones.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 weeks ago

This is what I've said since I learned of this experiment. I'm only waiting for the second marshmallow if BOTH of the following statements are true:

  1. I want two marshmallows.

  2. I trust the adult to keep his word.

[–] Kichae 11 points 3 weeks ago

As a kid, I could never trust adults who wanted to limit good things.

Guess what? This effect has been found in other experiments!

The marshmallow experiment is one of those that self-help gurus and LinkedIn 'influencers' love to peddle as being meaningful, in no small part because it tells people who had lucky upbringings that they are inherently better than others, and not just a product of their environment. But when it's actually examined critically, it falls apart.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

Time to calculate how much 1 marshmallow is worth in time considering minimum wage in my country.

Let's begin.
Minimum wage in Slovakia is €4.69/h.
An 80g bag of Jojo marshmallows is €1.19 at Tesco.
It claims one portion is 3 marshmallows which is 11.7g.
Therefore 1 marshmallow is 3.9g.
Therefore there are 20 - 21 marshmallows in the bag.
Therefore 1 marshmallow costs roughly €0.058.
€4.69/h is €0.078/m or €0.0013/s.
Therefore, 1 marshmallow costs roughly 44.62 seconds of work time.

Well, assuming there are no taxes. So maybe something close to 1 minute per marshmallow. Although... maybe if we add total time, including time you're not working... 12 marshmallows an hour, 288 a day, 2016 a week, 8640 a month. That's €501.12/month.

Based on this the minimum monthly wage after taxes and all is €661.80/month.

Conclusion: It is worth the 5 minutes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Marshmallows are bad. 2 would be a punishment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

They should have done cookies instead.

And sweeten the deal. 1 cookie or a BAG.. Yeah, give me a BAG it cookies, yeah. I'm an ADULT.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

We did this in church with maltesars

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I know what the marshmallow test is; I don't get the joke in the comic. It depicts one of the kids who didn't wait. Where's the joke?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago

It's not the kid who didn't wait...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think it's that he waited 5 seconds and got zero marshmellows?

Or he ate it already between the 2nd and 3rd panel, and is demanding the second one?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I didn't get it til another poster pointed it out -- instead of the kid eating the marshmallow, the marshmallow is biting the kid's arm.

I glanced over the comic a couple times, and each time I saw the kid tossing the marshmallow in the air as if to catch it in his mouth.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

The marshmallow is eating the kid, not the other way round.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Itt:
People not seeing the marshmallow speak, or bite the kid. Or the horrified look on the kids face.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh my god THAT'S why his face is like that and THAT'S the joke. I really didn't get this comic.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Took me D_C's comment to get it and even then it took me a minute to find the marshmallow and realize it wasn't on the plate anymore 🤦🏻

[–] Gestrid 5 points 3 weeks ago

I knew it wasn't on the plate anymore.

I just didn't know it was GNAWING THE KID'S ARM OFF.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

A shower thought about the original experiment:

It may have only measured how effective "waiting for future gains" was, as a strategy, for each child, in their circumstance.

So the real discovery may be only that the children already had a pretty good idea how promising their own futures were. :(

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

Or hungrier kids (aka poorer kids) get the marshmallow first. Or those in greater need of serotonin (at least I think it's serotonin) you get from sugar, etc. There's a variety of issues here, but that's true of most "experiments" that aren't actually randomized controlled trial experiments.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Or it measured how rare it was for them to get candy. The most interesting thing about the experiment is honestly the many ways in which it was flawed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 weeks ago

Turns out the test is only a good predictor of "how well you can trust the adults in your life to keep their words". Which tells more about the envirement than about the kid.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago

Hobbes will avenge him

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

sometimes i think about that kid in the experiment
who was sat down and told to wait some time
before eating the sweetness put in front of him

that his patience would bring a reward

and i think about how they laughed when he didn’t succeed in waiting and instead
crammed the entire gummy bear into his mouth the second they left

looking so guilty afterward

the way they gloated and collected data and prognosticated about his future job prospects and potential success-
certainly not as good as those who waited, they said

it was something about self-control

i know all too well that when he got home
there were probably no sweets
or if there were, they were there for a moment only
before being snatched away by either cruel hands or circumstance
no guarantee that promises meant anything, much less that they were kept.

if it had been me in that chair
i’d have eaten it too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd have the one just so I don't have to wait 5 minutes to get out of that weird ass test.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

the study didn't account that many kids assumed the guy was lying

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago

Ain't no marshmallow worth waiting 5 minutes for.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Store-bought marshmallows are one of those things where I only really want one.

There's an ice cream shop few towns over that makes fresh, exotic flavored marshmallows, depending on the day they're better than sex. But even those are about the size your fist and honestly two would be a little bit too much.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

You might want to try a different brand of sex tbh. It's gotta have serious issues to get beaten out by some fluffy sugar.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

This experiment was not specifically about whether a kid would wait for the second marshmellow or not (which would be delayed by 20+ minutes), nor whether they would play with the roomful of toys, but to see how they grew up. The real test was to catch up with the adults and see how 'successful' they'd become. The experimenters found that those children who waited for the second marshmellow achieved higher grades and had more 'successful' better-paying careers.

It's the concept of delayed rewards vs immediate rewards and is prevalent in the world of machine learning.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Excerpts from Wikipedia:

A replication attempt with a sample from a more diverse population, over 10 times larger than the original study, showed only half the effect of the original study. The replication suggested that economic background, rather than willpower, explained the other half.

Work done in 2018 and 2024 found that the Marshmallow Test "does not reliably predict adult functioning".

It's great for a confirmation bias, but such a study is way too simplistic to really reach a conclusion. Oh, and:

The results seemed to indicate that not thinking about a reward enhances the ability to delay gratification, rather than focusing attention on the future reward.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

later replications of the test showed that the difference between kids waiting or not, and successful or not was significantly related to their parents financial status, in other words, the broke kids ate the stuff that was in front of them, because they learned that promises are not always kept

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Such a silly experiment. You're gonna make them sit and be bored for five minutes with nothing else to do besides thinking about two marshmallows?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

This is a cognitive task aiming to assess whether kids can trade a small reward now for a bigger one later (it tests inhibitory control and ability to project oneself in the future). This experiment was conducted by comparative psychologists and, if I recall well, they also compared the kid's performance to that of some primates to understand the evolution of the human mind.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

The best play is to eat the marshmallow immediately so that the experimenter moves onto the next test.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Why is this slightly calvin but not quite

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

….will there be a new one every 5 minutes?

load more comments
view more: next ›