Comment by JumpCrisscross
6 months ago
> Does it? Is it? IDK and I don't want to waste time finding out
This is what goes through the toddlers’ heads too! Gauging credibility is inextricably entangled with patience and Kahmeman’s System 2 thinking [1][2].
If this were a random article, sure, you shouldn’t trust. But it’s not. It’s on HN’s front page.
Given how many non-marshmallow articles are out there on the internet, and your apparent risk-reward ratio, I wonder if you're the one failing the test. And you haven't really justified your original claim that GP failed the marshmallow test.
> how many non-marshmallow articles are out there on the internet
Most of the HN front page aren’t marshmallows. If you believe they are, it’s irrational to be here, let alone waste time commenting about it.
The contents of the HN front page is determined by the HN readers, and is not uniformly interesting to all of them. It is up to the article presented to the users to prove that it is worth the time to read and deserves to be on the front page, and this one doesn't to a great job of that.
The marshmallow test should have a follow up, where the person offering the marshmallow has to prove credibility, and the person receiving it has to decide if it's worth waiting. Would be an interesting view of human interactions.
1 reply →
I think GP just wants you to be smart enough to commend them for knowing of the marshmallow test but not smart enough to know if the reference is applicable.
Toddlers are told they will get two marshmallows if they wait.
This is like “you can have a headache now and, if you wait, might get something later, perhaps a punch in the face, perhaps a slice of pie, perhaps nothing.”
The Internet is full of non-marshmallows though, I'm not gonna wait around forever for a haribo
I agree with OP that this presentation is very irritating.