Counterintuitive Spring 2023

Control Yourself – Social Trust is Essential to Delay Gratification

In the famous Marshmallow Study conducted in the 1960’s, Professor Walter Mitchel of Stanford University discovered that some children had the ability to delay gratification. They waited to eat a treat (a marshmallow, a pretzel, a candy) in order to obtain a second treat.   Some children gobbled up the treat, either unwilling or unable to display self control when presented with a tasty morsel. Scientists hypothesized that self control traits were inherent, and those with natural self control abilities went on to lead healthier, more successful lives than those children who lacked the ability to self control.   Psychologists and social scientists realized that emotional intelligence and self control were more important to life success than IQ intelligence. Many people took this to mean that self control is a predetermined trait.

However, a new study by Celeste Kidd of the University of Rochester seems to challenge the assumption that exhibiting self control is a predetermined trait that leads to success. In her study, she found that trust and confidence in the results of waiting to receive the reward play a significant role in a person’s ability to delay gratification. The children tested were able to make rational decisions on the probability of reward based on trust. Professor Kidd was able to manipulate the degree of delayed gratification by introducing reliable and unreliable variables to their experiment. Kidd’s study clearly demonstrates that environment has as much impact on the ability to self control as innate ability. Children who had trust in the outcome waited on average four times longer than children put in unreliable situations. There has to be social trust (trust in people delivering future rewards as promised) for people to be willing to delay gratification in order to achieve a goal.

Children unlucky enough to be born into poverty, or with absent fathers, have been proven to be less successful in life because they lack the ability to delay gratification. They almost always choose to grab what they can immediately, and not postpone gratification in the hopes of getting more.  The lack of social trust in the family structure leads to juvenile delinquency, poor performance in school, and lack of economic opportunities. Simply put, weak cognitive self control plus deviant opportunity equals crime and other negative social outcomes. These children are more likely to have been exposed to drugs and alcohol while in the womb which can cause brain abnormalities linked to self control deficits. In a neglected environment, children do not learn self control skills from their parents or other adults. They may be physically abused, and thus lose control over their emotions.  Studies have shown that the more environmental risk factors a child experiences, the more likely the child will exhibit a lack of self control. Sleep deprivation is another problem among the poor caused by many factors. Poor temperatures, hunger, crowded environments and stress can lead to sleep problems. Self control is impaired when a child does not get enough sleep.

A classic definition of weak cognitive self control includes impulsiveness, low frustration tolerance, self-centeredness, bullying behavior and risk taking behavior. Studies indicate that when parental discipline, nurturing and monitoring are absent, children are at a greater risk for weak cognitive self control. Parents who exhibit weak self control are those most likely to have children that exhibit weak self control. Proper parenting requires extensive effort, patience and consistent structure, not likely to be found in the homeless community. Studies indicate a significant link between low maternal self control and low child self control, as many of these families have absent fathers.

According to a study done by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) it was shown that parents or other important adults have a major impact on whether or not a child develops good cognitive self control. The parents set ground rules, provide structure and discipline, teach consequences, and provide adequate socialization for their children. They monitor their offspring and teach right from wrong. When four conditions are present (care, monitor, recognize, and correct) children learn to avoid situations with long term negative consequences. Studies have shown that all four conditions must be present for the child to learn self-control. There is also the contention that self control is stable once the child passes the ages of 8 or 10 years of age. Good children tend to remain good, while those lacking self control continue to be worrisome to parents and teachers, and could lead to juvenile delinquency. Therefore, the window of opportunity to make a difference in a child’s life occurs in early childhood. Any teacher can identify those children at risk. For example, if a child is disruptive in the classroom in second or third grade, he would be identified as a child who requires intervention to learn self control techniques. Parents would be brought into the discussion and taught the four conditions necessary for learning self control (care, monitor, recognize and correct), and work in conjunction with the teacher to establish ground rules to put the child on a positive path.

Children with the least amount of trust (absent fathers, homeless environments) are those that score the lowest in self control and delayed gratification, strengthening my hypothesis that trust and confidence are essential elements to be successful. These children had little faith that the adults would deliver on their promises, thus they live in unreliable worlds.

In the article Delaying Gratification Depends on Social Trust, researchers discovered a causal role in social trust in delaying gratification. Simply put, a person has to believe that a future reward will be delivered in return for delaying gratification. If the trust is absent, such as in negative experiences and environments, then the likelihood of self control drops significantly. The fact that the Marshmallow Study demonstrates that delaying gratification at 4 years of age is a predictor of a healthier, more successful future shows the importance of instilling social trust in at risk populations at a young age. Developing social trust that would encourage them to delay gratification in order to achieve a better future.

James Clear’s article 40 Years of Stanford Research Found That People With This One Quality Are More Likely To Succeed supports the hypothesize that delaying gratification occurs when there is trust in the outcome. Children were given treats in both reliable and unreliable environments. If a child had no trust in getting that second treat, they were quick to eat the first treat. In a reliable environment, however, children were more willing to delay gratification to get that second treat. The results of the environment, negative or positive, were almost instantaneous. Delaying gratification can be learned and is influenced by trust and confidence in the outcome.

Works Cited

“40 Years of Stanford Research Found That People With This One Quality Are More Likely to Succeed.” 40 Years of Stanford Research Found That People With This One Quality Are More Likely to Succeed. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

“Delaying Gratification Depends on Social Trust.” Frontiers. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

“The Marshmallow Study Revisited.” : Rochester News. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

Its Not America’s Fault For the Fat

When something goes amiss in someone’s life they are quick to point fingers at other people. They do not want to take the responsibility of their actions. Like when people start to gain weight they are always quick to point fingers at anyone who is standing in front of them. When other countries started to have their obesity rate skyrocket, America took a blind eye and said “It’s not our fault,” oh but on the contrary it is fully the american cultures fault as to why the obesity rate in other countries have skyrocketed over the years.

People say that American culture has only helped Mexico. That their fast food culture is not the reason for the obesity rate to raise, that it must be something else that is going skew.  Now, within Mexico’s culture, the country has a vibrant food pyramid that they consume on the daily basis and overall a healthy country. Mexico has a rich diet that contains such delicacies that would make one’s mouth water. Some of those are culturally rich food are cabrito ( baby goat), fresh pico de gallo, handmade corn tortillas and freshly mashed guacamole. All of these foods are rich in vitamins so how did these foods make Mexico fat American culture? That is because it didn’t, the introduction of the American fast food culture is what made the obesity rate increase over the years. Before 1994, There was not a free trade zone between North America and Mexico. This means that the fast food chains and their disastrous products were not allowed to be in the country and Mexico was free of the dangerous foods. In 1994 the game changed and the obesity rate started to rise. In 1994 the NAFTA came into place. The NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) is an agreement between United States, Canada, and Mexico that allows the countries to freely trade and implement their fast food culture, including the dangerous food that comes with it, in their way of life. According to the website, rt.com, the NAFTA allowed Mexico to become a “dumping ground for a slew of cheap fast food and carbonated drinks.” As of 2013, Mexico drinks 43 gallons of soda per capita annually. With this statistic alone it allows Mexico to be the world’s highest rate of soda consumption. This increase is all american fast food cultures fault. They pushed their destructive products on the people of Mexico. With the increase of the soda consumption it only leads to the introduction to serious health problems. According to the website, when one is diagnosed with obesity it puts them at a increased chance to 20 times for diabetes. Not only does it increase the chance for diabetes, it also opens them up to high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, and gallstones. All because of American fast food culture wants to increase their yearly revenue.

Some that see that argument will just say “American fast food culture has only affected one area, American fast food culture cannot be blamed for the entire world!” While Mexico is just one example of how American Fast Food culture has poorly affected countries, there are other areas of the world that have been affected, such as Asia or India. According to NCBI, Asia has 60 percent of the worldwide total of people that are diagnosed with diabetes. Before the introduction of fast food, the people of Asia used to be a country the diet of vegetables, whole grains and limited consumption of animal products. They are now shifting towards a diet of fast food, processed meats, highly-processed carbohydrates, and the land being swamped with cola machines. India is a very different story. According to CNBC, “India has a long had a reputation as being unfriendly to foreign businesses, but when it comes to fast food, international chains are being warmly welcomed by a young, upwardly mobile population.” This statement makes the reader realize that India was once a country that did not let American fast food chains into their land, but now they are letting them in, but starting to see negative side effects. With the increase of fast food chains, the number of people diagnosed with diabetes will increase from 61 million to 101 million. With the increase of diagnosed people this means that the demand for medication in order to survive with the disease will only become more expensive for the people that can afford it. Many people will die due to the fact that they are unable to afford the medicine they need since American fast food culture pushed themselves into other countries.

While many people would ignore the fact that american fast food culture is putting other countries in danger, they will just say “If it’s ruining them and causing obesity, why don’t the people just go out and buy something else? No one is forcing them.” While that is true, no one is forcing them to buy the food, it is the only option that they have. The economy around the world is in the toilet. Regardless of where you go many people are hurting and can not afford to eat healthy food. In Mexico they have the super value menu, comparable to the one in the United States, where in the US one can get a meal for $5. In mexico, according to OECD, the average person only makes about 13,000 USD. This is significantly lower than what the average American makes. This means that they have succumbed to eating fast food due to the fact that their annual wage earnings do not allow them to eat the items that are classified as “healthy”.

Works Cited

Eatocracy Editors. “5@5 – The Truth about Mexican Food.”Http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2011/08/24/55-the-truth-about-mexican-food/. N.p., Aug.-Sept. 2011. Web. 9  Nov. 2015    

“How Excess Weight Affects Your Health.” http://www.helpguide.org/harvard/how-excess-weight-affects-your-health.htm. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.

Pan, An, Vasanti Malik, and Frank B. Hu. “Exporting Diabetes to Asia: The Impact of Western-Style Fast Food.” Circulation. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

“Indians Develop Taste for the Big Mac.” CNBC. N.p., 08 Jan. 2014. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

“Mexico.” OECD Better Life Index. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

“I Can’t Breathe!”

It is likely that police officers will say they used excessive force on suspects because of the attempt to resist arrest and putting the officers in danger. This could be done by fleeing when arrested, life-threatening remarks, fighting back or using profanity when addressing cops. When suspects demonstrate any of those behaviors, law enforcement now has the permission to control suspects and that is done by using brutal behavior. In the United States, resisting arrest is a criminal charge and police officers have the right to use excessive force on suspects who can’t demonstrate self-control and follow arrest procedures. Typical arrest procedures include asking the name of the suspect, date of birth, where the suspect is from and the suspect’s side of the story. However, if the excessive force is used to control suspects who haven’t demonstrated resisting arrest and causes GBI or great bodily harm (physical injuries) to them, they now have the right to use self-defense against law enforcement.

On July 17, 2014, Eric Garner spoke his final words on a city block in Staten Island, New York “I can’t breathe!” Garner was well known in the area for selling untaxed cigarettes nearby the Staten Island Ferry Terminal and was arrested twice and charged with circumventing state tax law earlier that same year. However, on this specific day police officers Justin Damico and Daniel Pantaleo took it entirely too far as they immediately recognized Garner and attacked before questioning or before Garner could give signs of resisting arrest. Unarmed Garner’s life was taken at the bare hands of white officer Pantaleo as a result of a chokehold that was recorded by multiple people on the streets of Staten Island. While the officer continued to choke Garner who was supposedly “resisting arrest,” many heard his cry for help as the unarmed man yelled “I can’t breathe!” Instead of releasing Garner from the chokehold, Officer Pantaleo and other officers who were at the scene left him handcuffed and motionless on the ground without instantly seeking proper medical attention. Before videos were released of the chaos that took place most people had no idea how Garner’s death took place or if the police were the reason behind it.

In most cases it is common that police officers will claim that they used excessive force as a way of controlling suspects who attempt to resist arrest. After July 17, 2014 cops demonstrated that excessive force is used frequently and is fact abused by some as they resort to using it without suspects showing signs of resisting arrest or having any questionable reasoning. If this remains as an ongoing issue our law enforcement will continue to be viewed negatively and lose the respect of many.

Works Cited

Baker, Al, J. Goodman, and Benjamin Mueller. “Beyond the Chokehold: The Path to Eric Garner’s Death.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 June 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

“Resisting Arrest When Police Use Excessive Force | Nolo.com.” Nolo.com. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

“What Procedures Must the Police Follow While Making an Arrest? – FindLaw.” Findlaw. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

An App that Combats Autism

Autism causes its victims to suffer varying degrees of social ineptitude, so playing video games does not sound like an appropriate treatment. Surprisingly, sitting alone while glued to a screen promotes social skills and empathy. Those with autism can rejoice, for they can now download an app and begin undergoing treatment for their symptoms. The four pillars of scientific-based learning raise this app into the realm of the radical yet practical area of treating cognitive disorders through gaming.

Designed by 35 students at the University of Southern California, Social Clues provides autistic individuals a platform to hone the art of social norms. Doing so in the real-world often proves extremely challenging for those on the autism spectrum. Using their iPad, players can combat symptoms in the comfort of their own homes, without the societal backlash that accompanies social faux pas. Most American households, roughly 70 percent, own a tablet, meaning this new form of treatment is widely available and easily accessible. The days of going to the pharmacy and picking up pills to alleviate autism symptoms may be coming to an end. Parents can download the app, hand their child a tablet, and circumvent the high cost of prescription drugs and the nasty side effects that they entail.

Rigorous scientific research has gone into making Social Clues a game that can be trusted for results. Evidence-based practices are considered the standard when it comes to developing learning programs, and this app incorporates four core principles: Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA), errorless learning, social narrative, and discrete trial training. Game developers have utilized these four methods to craft an effective form of autism treatment.

ABA modifies behavior using the cause-and-effect of certain actions, and is implemented in Social Clues via colorful characters that children can identify with. The aptly named particiPETE or communiKATE are the two avatars players can control, and it is through either of these characters that Applied Behavior Analysis is experienced. Various scenarios are presented to the child, who is instructed to choose the response they deem most fitting to the situation at-hand. For instance, the player loses a toy and must communicate with classmates to find it, prompted to use social necessities like eye contact and maintaining conversations. The NPCs (non-playable characters) react accordingly, either pleased or unresponsive to the player’s decision. Children can see the outcomes of certain social moves, and learn which are better in a given situation. Their behavior is essentially modified in a relaxed environment, where the modification is not apparent to them. ABA subtly alters behavior overtime, rather than attempting to quickly force change upon the socially-anxious player.

Autistic children undoubtedly know the pains of social mistakes on the schoolyard. Children can be cruel, mocking and abusing those who are not on the same social level. This is where errorless learning comes in, allowing the game to be free of negative stimuli that cause stress in social situations. “You’ve failed” or “game over” messages are absent. Much like in real-life, each decision comes with different results. Players are gently guided to the most suitable choice by an in-game narrator, a humorous parrot that lightens the mood and explains why one decision might be wiser than another.

Children love stories, and social narratives allow for the gaming experience to be captivating and understandable for young minds. Relatability is key, and the narrative arcs of the game are ones that all children can relate to: interacting with students in a classroom, taking the bus, searching for lost toys, or getting along with a sibling. Pacman-style games increase hand-eye coordination, while games with social narratives contain substance and heart, enabling emotional attachment to the story and its characters. Empathy is largely employed throughout the game, a skill that autistic sufferers often need help with.

Discrete trial training (DTT) is the final nail in the coffin of autism that Social Clues hammers in. Each level is one trial, aimed at developing a certain skill. Following every trial, a report summarizes the player’s progress, highlighting the areas that need improvement for the next trial. Parents or instructors can review the results of the trial reports and work with the child in those areas. Rather than overloading with a large number of tasks, DTT allows for digestible chunks to be completed one at a time.

The evidence-based practices inherent in Social Clues provide the logic for encouraging autistic people to play video games as a step to healing. Stereotypes paint gamers as sitting in dark rooms, developing antisocial personality disorder while mindlessly indulging in pointless games. Yet this new therapeutic app has a specific point: alleviating the symptoms of autism. If more game developers embrace the methods used in Social Clues, our pharmacies will become stocked with video games and patients looking to begin treatment.

Works Cited

Wong, Connie, Samuel L. Odom, Kara A. Hume, Ann W. Cox, Angel Fettig, Suzanne Kucharczyk, Matthew E. Brock, Joshua B. Plavnick, Veronica P. Fleury, and Tia R. Schultz. “Evidence-Based Practices for Children, Youth, and Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Comprehensive Review.” J Autism Dev Disord Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 45.7 (2015): 1951-966. 2014. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.

Ballon, Marc. “Video Game Promotes Social Engagement for Children with Autism.” Video Game Promotes Social Engagement for Children with Autism. N.p., 21 Apr. 2014. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.