MetaKnigel If the Rule is Broken–Break It.

Have Your Marshmallow and Eat Two

Written by Knigel Holmes

Pop psychology appeals to a broader audience because it forces complex data into neat, digestible categories. Diametric categories are more memorable and market-friendly; therefore, consumers know of Martian men and Venusian women, logical left-brainers and creative right-brainers, and now, impulsive one-marshmallow eaters and self-controlled two-marshmallow eaters. Walter Mischel’s “marshmallow experiments” were conducted in the mid-1960s, whereby researchers let children choose between receiving one marshmallow immediately and waiting for two marshmallows at a later time. Mischel’s research, the follow-up studies (Lehrer), and the media response have fuelled the belief that there are only two types of people in the world: those who resist temptation and receive their two metaphorical marshmallows, and those who succumb to their immediate impulses and eat only one metaphorical marshmallow.

Both sides of the divide have compelling arguments. Pop culture references such as Joachim de Posada’s Don’t Eat the Marshmallow…Yet! have promoted delayed gratification because of a positive correlation in the research between resisting temptation at an earlier age and a more successful life later on. In addition, with regards to the interests of society, the two-marshmallow philosophy is more functional than its counterpart.  Society tends to value productive, long lives more than short, intense lives, emphasising the belief that restraining our desires for the hope of a future reward allows us to become more contributing, productive members to the collective. While we do have moments of satisfaction and joy, we learn to endure discontent, and through this conditioning, habitually delay truly enjoying life. So much is this belief embedded into our moral codes that it is not uncommon to find individuals working safe, albeit boring jobs to support their families, thinking twice before doing anything that could jeopardise living comfortably at an old age. In fact, society often scolds those who live more intense lives for being selfish and inconsiderate. Not only do deviants get the stink eye for enjoying the pleasures of life, but they also face legal sanctions for behaviour that affects none besides themselves. The perceptions behind these mores and laws exist as a result of the orthodox definition and parameters of “normal behaviour” that come from our emphasis on delayed gratification.

The one-marshmallow philosophy serves the interests of the person not persuaded by conformity. For example, a medical prognosis of a looming expiry date may inspire one to “seize the day”. If we consider this thought for a moment, we can see that it is not time itself that dominates our lives, but the perception of time. Both philosophies distort the perception of time; however, the one-marshmallow model allows such a brilliant intensity of living in the moment that time becomes seemingly eternal or meaningless. Those with impulsive behaviour tendencies perceive time in a way that benefits them personally, acting on their impulses with little regard for any future consequences. They believe that one need not wait for retirement when one could experience the full extent of heaven, hell, and all spiritual realms immediately.

Our entire experience of the objective world depends on how we perceive that world. We have no real understanding of objective time since our states of consciousness continuously distort our time perception. Time seemingly slows down when we are bored, speeds up when we are excited, and stops during crisis. Psychedelic drugs make living in the moment a reality since chemicals allow one to perceive infinity and a state outside of time. Someone seeking more immediate rewards without worrying about the future consequences has more opportunity to manipulate time perception to their own advantage by using time distorting substances such as lysergic acid diethylamide, Psilocybin, or salvia divinorum. A single shamanic Ayahuasca experience offers several eternities in multiple realities; therefore, those who ingest substances experience a longer perception of time in a shorter period than someone who chooses to abstain. The shamanic experience shames mortal ideas of reincarnation and afterlife.

Despite future possible side effects, one psychedelic marshmallow may enrich a life beyond what could be experienced without a chemical kick. Of course, any one impulse may lead to death, yet with no evidence of an afterlife, why choose to live a mediocre one? To one-marshmallow philosophers, when the old look back on their lives, they do not remember the individual days they worked. Rather, they think about that one time in a drug-infused hedonistic orgy on the beach, or tentatively moving in for that first kiss, and regret not jumping out of more planes, dancing with beautiful flings, and playing with fire.

Understanding the underlying drivers of these processes allows individuals to then recognise the existence of a middle ground, where they can maximise satisfaction by balancing immediate and delayed gratification. Going with our impulses and delaying our gratifications are similar in that they both lead to sacrificing opportunities. In the simplistic terms of the marshmallow dilemma, children were given the chance to sacrifice one marshmallow in the present for two marshmallows in the future. Yet, expounding upon the parameters of the experiment, I believe that we are sacrificing our immediate reward for the chance of two metaphorical marshmallows in the future. If we take the single marshmallow now, we know what we are getting now, but we do not know what, if anything, we will get in the future, simply because we cannot predict it. We do not know when stocks will crash. We assume we will wake up tomorrow. So, to defy our grips with mortality, we seize the moment, take risks and grasp opportunities. And yet, this does not always mesh with our long-term goals. Constantly delaying living is bad, yet surely sacrificing future moments for momentary satisfaction is also a waste. This patience of waiting for a potential reward, however, makes withdrawals from our willpower reserves giving us less energy to fight future impulses and temptations (Muraven). We restrain ourselves from the one marshmallow now, get two later, and then guiltily buy a whole bag. 15 minutes of waiting for a reward is time wasted on trying not to do something enjoyable. Eating the marshmallow frees one to move on.

Understanding the underlying drivers of individuals’ short- and long-term decision-making processes allows us to recognise the existence of a middle ground, where satisfaction can be maximised by balancing immediate and delayed gratification. This can be achieved through means of personal control. We increase the chances of having spectacular experiences if we learn to control our impulses. If willpower were a muscle that we needed to work out (Pychyl), we would do better to have the strength to handle decisions when they came so that we would have a true choice. If we lack willpower, we cannot resist the marshmallows that are not worth losing the possible future reward. We can reject the marshmallows that we do not even want. We just mindlessly consume. Through mental strength training, we go through less decision fatigue (Tierney), and therefore, we can make a better evaluation of the possible rewards. Maximizing our pleasure means a constant struggle of moderation and release.

While pop psychology bibliographies have pages of scientific citations, the conclusions often offer a false choice between two options ignoring anything in the middle. The pop psychology marshmallow model, however, completely excludes the middle: we can partake in both the hedonistic as well as delayed gratification lifestyles through willpower training. Trying to attain future satisfaction by waiting for the two marshmallows is better for living successfully in society, and throwing it all to the flames to live in the brilliance of the moment while stuffing one’s mouth with the single marshmallow is better for the individual. The compromise between the two theories is to train our willpower like a muscle so that we can choose the best times for hedonistic pleasure while having enough control to delay unworthy gratifications. In the end, as there are more than two planets, and as there are more complexities of brain hemispheres than merely left versus right, so too can we have our marshmallow and eat two.

Works Cited

Lehrer, Jonah. “DON’T! The Secret of Self Control.” The New Yorker. 18 May. 2009. Web. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=1

Muraven, M., Baumeister, R. F. “Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle?” Psychological Bulletin 126.2 (2000): 247-259. Web. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/126/2/247/

de Posada, Joachim. donteatthemarshmallowyet.com. Don’t eat the marshmallow…yet! n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. http://donteatthemarshmallowyet.com/

Pychyl, Timothy A. “Self-regulation failure (Part 2): Willpower is like a muscle” psychologytoday.com. Psychology Today. 23 Feb. 2009. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200902/self-regulation-failure-part-2-willpower-is-muscle

Tierney, John. “Do you suffer from decision fatigue?” nytimes.com. The New York Times. 17 Aug. 2011. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html