I’m not going to eat between meals and I’m not going to take seconds. Just today. And I’m going to try this for a year to see what happens.

I was reading an editorial in the New York Times by David Brooks (Marshmallows and Public Policy) which I can’t link to because the online editorials require a paid subscription. But here are the bits that got me thinking:

Around 1970, Walter Mischel launched a classic experiment. He left a succession of 4-year-olds in a room with a bell and a marshmallow. If they rang the bell, he would come back and they could eat the marshmallow. If, however, they didn’t ring the bell and waited for him to come back on his own, they could then have two marshmallows.

In videos of the experiment, you can see the children squirming, kicking, hiding their eyes — desperately trying to exercise self-control so they can wait and get two marshmallows. Their performance varied widely. Some broke down and rang the bell within a minute. Others lasted 15 minutes.

The children who waited longer went on to get higher SAT scores. They got into better colleges and had, on average, better adult outcomes. The children who rang the bell quickest were more likely to become bullies. They received worse teacher and parental evaluations 10 years on and were more likely to have drug problems at age 32.

(snip)

The ability to delay gratification, like most skills, correlates with socioeconomic status and parenting styles. Children from poorer homes do much worse on delayed gratification tests than children from middle-class homes. That’s probably because children from poorer homes are more likely to have their lives disrupted by marital breakdown, violence, moving, etc. They think in the short term because there is no predictable long term.

The good news is that while differences in the ability to delay gratification emerge early and persist, that ability can be improved with conscious effort. Moral lectures don’t work. Sheer willpower doesn’t seem to work either. The children who resisted eating the marshmallow didn’t stare directly at it and exercise iron discipline. On the contrary, they were able to resist their appetites because they were able to distract themselves, and think about other things.

What works, says Jonathan Haidt, the author of “The Happiness Hypothesis,” is creating stable, predictable environments for children, in which good behavior pays off — and practice. Young people who are given a series of tests that demand self-control get better at it over time.

I wonder if it was controlled by whether the kids liked marshmallows or not? Just imagine if your fate depended on whether you were tempted by grilled cheese sandwiches (which you loved) or marshmallows (which you didn’t).t One false craving and it’s low SATs and prison for you!

OK (I’m sorry), no more jokes.

I know that this sentence, “On the contrary, they were able to resist their appetites because they were able to distract themselves, and think about other things.”w matches my experience with The Commitment. That trying to ‘be strong’ isn’t nearly as useful a strategy in resisting temptation as getting up and doing something, pretty much anything.i And that (as he says) I’ve gotten better at it over time.

But resisting the foods that tempt me will always be a challenge (yesterday was a struggle.) Luckily I don’t have to worry about it all the time.p That’s right, I’m only going to worry about it today. And I’ve got a lot of overdue projects to work on if I need distracting.