We're Facing a Global Marshmallow Test
We’re facing and failing a global "Marshmallow Test." Even if not individually, we’ve become systemically less good at making smart now-vs.-later decisions. And economics isn’t helping -- it advises "discounting" the future.
Jag Bhalla is an entrepreneur, inventor and writer. His current project is Errors We Live By, a series of short exoteric essays exposing errors in the big ideas running our lives, details at www.errorsweliveby.com. His last book was I'm Not Hanging Noodles On Your Ears, a surreptitious science gift book from National Geographic Books, details at www.hangingnoodles.com. That explains his twitter handle @hangingnoodles.
We’re facing and failing a global “Marshmallow Test.” Even if not individually, we’ve become systemically less good at making smart now-vs.-later decisions. And economics (=aggregated psychology, often oversimplified) isn’t helping. It advises “discounting” the future.
1. Walter Mischel’s “Marshmallow Test” assesses children’s self-control, testing their ability to resist one treat now to get two later. Kids who resisted longer do better as adults (life constantly needs now-vs-later decision, see also Plato’s pastry).
2. Steven Pinker generally agrees with Mischel, self-control is a “single capability,” measurable in childhood, that’s evolutionarily adaptive, and stable for decades. (Aquinas included it, as temperance, among the “natural virtues,” now better called rational life skills).
3. Mischel favors two metaphors: (a) Hot-vs.-cold brain systems pit self-command against impulsiveness. (b) Self-control is like a muscle (trainable, depletable). But Mischel notes Pinker’s “single capability” can mean strong “willpower in one situation, but not another.”
4. For economists now-vs.-later means “discounting” future utility = a “self-evident propensity to value more highly… an asset today… than the same asset… in the future” (Alan Greenspan).
5. Psychologists like Pinker say we rationally “ought to discount the future” (though not too steeply, or unhealthily).
6. But should all future assets be “discounted”? Is a future breathable atmosphere wisely discountable? Should our unavoidable future needs be lessened? Or given great weight in decisions? (See the logic of needism).
7. Future discounting’s most dangerous form is the “net present value” technique, now widely used in cost-benefit analyses. NPV uses a “discount rate” to calculate a current worth for a stream of future revenues. Seems rationally sophisticated? But it’s often only structured guesses plugged into a spreadsheet. Here’s a rare calculo-guesswork confession: Banks = “a collection of guesses.”
8. Short-term profit pressures constantly present business Marshmallow Tests (e.g. lower investment for the future = higher profits now).
9. Plus businesses can benefit by encouraging self-indulgence (=systemic pressure pushing customers to fail Marshmallow Tests).
10. Markets work by aggregating decisions, prudent or not. Nothing prevents them from aggregating imprudence (sometimes spreading its effects to even the prudent, e.g. unhealthy diets increase health insurance rates for healthier eaters).
It’s time we got our time priorities straight. Cultures vary in their future-orientedness. But no culture that “discounts” its future needs has much future. If we don’t become systemically more future oriented, we’ll continue to let markets, the most powerful social forces on Earth, deplete that Earth. Anybody got a second marshmallow-Earth? (See also plot of Interstellar).
Illustration by Julia Suits, The New Yorker cartoonist & author of The Extraordinary Catalog of Peculiar Inventions
The ability to speak clearly, succinctly, and powerfully is easier than you think
The ability to communicate effectively can make or break a person's assessment of your intelligence, competence, and authenticity.
Antimicrobial resistance is growing worldwide, rendering many "work horse" medicines ineffective. Without intervention, drug-resistant pathogens could lead to millions of deaths by 2050. Thankfully, companies like Pfizer are taking action.
- Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens are one of the largest threats to global health today.
- As we get older, our immune systems age, increasing our risk of life threatening infections. Without reliable antibiotics, life expectancy could decline for the first time in modern history.
- If antibiotics become ineffective, common infections could result in hospitalization or even death. Life-saving interventions like cancer treatments and organ transplantation would become more difficult, more often resulting in death. Routine procedures would become hard to perform.
- Without intervention, resistant pathogens could result in 10 million annual deaths by 2050.
- By taking a multi-faceted approach—inclusive of adherence to good stewardship, surveillance and responsible manufacturing practices, as well as an emphasis on prevention and treatment—companies like Pfizer are fighting to help curb the spread.
Journalism got a big wake up call in 2016. Can we be optimistic about the future of media?
- "[T]o have a democracy that thrives and actually that manages to stay alive at all, you need regular citizens being able to get good, solid information," says Craig Newmark.
- The only constructive way to deal with fake news? Support trustworthy media. In 2018, Newmark was announced as a major donor of two new media organizations, The City, which will report on New York City-area stories which may have otherwise gone unreported, and The Markup, which will report on technology.
- Greater transparency of fact-checking within media organizations could help confront and correct fake news. Organizations already exist to make media more trustworthy — are we using them? There's The Trust Project, International Fact-Checkers Network, and Tech & Check.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.