Self-Control In Kids Predicts Future Success 245
SpuriousLogic writes "A new study suggests that a child's future success depends on the amount of self-control they exhibit. From the article: 'The international team of researchers looked at 1,037 children in New Zealand born in the early 1970s, observing their levels of self-control at ages 3 and 5. At ages 5, 7, 9 and 11, the team used parent, teacher and the children's own feedback to measure such factors as impulsive aggression, hyperactivity, lack of persistence and inattention. At age 32, they used physical exams, blood tests, records searches and personal interviews of 96% of the original participants to determine how healthy, wealthy and law-abiding the subjects had turned out to be. The results were startling. In the fifth of children with the least self-control, 27% had multiple health problems. Compare that with the fifth of kids with the most self-control — at just 11%. Among the bottom fifth, 32% had an annual income below approximately $15,000, while only 10% of the top fifth fell into that low-income bracket. Just 26% of the top-fifth's offspring were raised in single-parent homes, compared with 58% of those in the bottom fifth. And 43% of the bottom fifth had been convicted of a crime, far outstripping the top fifth's 13% rate.'"
TED - Marshmallow Experiment (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ted.com/talks/joachim_de_posada_says_don_t_eat_the_marshmallow_yet.html
Looks familiar (Score:2, Informative)
Self control == Intelligence (Score:4, Informative)
I can't comment on the study because I couldn't find a link to it in the linked article (wtf?).
One of the definitions of intelligence is the ability to put off an immediate reward for a long term benefit. Children are presented with a jelly bean and told "if you can wait until [the researcher] get back, you'll get 3 jelly beans", and then the researcher leaves.
Kids who can put off temptation the longest tend to score highest in IQ tests.
For example, smokers could give up smoking for 3 months and use the money to pay for a high-def TV. This never happens in practice, because of their inability to put off the immediate pleasure in order to get the long-term reward.
BTW, the links on Slashdot have no underlines? With no decoration, you have to mouse around the text in order to see if a link was included in the article.
Link to the Paper (Score:5, Informative)
Link to the paper "A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety" by Terrie E. Moffitt, Et Al.
The Abstract : http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/20/1010076108 [pnas.org]
The PDF Paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/20/1010076108.full.pdf+html [pnas.org]
The Journal Snippit: http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/highlights.shtml#control [pnas.org]
Though policy-makers have considered programs to enhance the nation’s health, wealth, and safety through interventions to improve children’s self-control skills, researchers had not previously shown that childhood self-control actually influences adult outcomes in large populations. Terrie Moffitt et al. analyzed assessments of more than 1,000 participants in the Dunedin, New Zealand Longitudinal Study who were followed from birth to age 32. Even after accounting for differences in social status and IQ, the researchers found that children as young as 3 who scored highly on measures of self-control were less likely than lower-scoring children to develop common physical health problems, abuse drugs, experience financial difficulties, raise a child in a single-parent household, or be convicted of a crime as adults. In a second sample of 500 nonidentical British twins, the sibling who scored lowest in measures of self-control at age 5 was more likely than the other twin to begin smoking, perform poorly in school, and engage in antisocial behaviors at age 12, the authors report. Children whose self-control improved during the study fared better as adults in measures of health, wealth, and criminal history than was otherwise predicted by their initial childhood scores. The results suggest that even small improvements in individuals’ self-control could improve the health, wealth, and safety of large populations, according to the authors. — J.M.
Is real science from Dunedin Longitudinal Study (Score:3, Informative)
Here is an interview about this in particular (not sure if available outside NZ!): http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Children-with-more-self-control-turn-into-healthier-and-wealthier-adults/tabid/506/articleID/18253/Default.aspx [radiolive.co.nz] or google http://www.google.com/search?q=Dunedin+Longitudinal+Study [google.com] for background information.
It is a very rigourous study that has been going for nearly 40 years (now on phase 38), producing 900 papers, and a superb data set because they still have an amazing 96% of the original sample set (now aged about 40) getting regularly tested. They go to extreme lengths to continue keeping the original people coming back - e.g. organising flights for all the people that have elsewhere including a large number that are spread around the world.
Re:Old and Bad study (Score:5, Informative)
You are talking complete bollocks.
This particular study is a sub-study of one of the most complete longitudinal studies [otago.ac.nz] of its kind and it is still continuing [otago.ac.nz]. It is run by real scientists, some of whom have made it their life work.
Re:Causation is not Correlia (Score:4, Informative)
Re:As someone who's studied and taugh (Score:2, Informative)
Part of the confusion may be that you're discussing martial arts like there's no difference between the different disciplines, let alone different instructors and facilities.
Things like Kung-Fu and Tai Chi will involve much more focus and concentration than most other martial arts.
Similarly, Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ), Muy Thai and Wrestling (and, to a lesser degree, Judo, Aikido and Krav Maga) have shown themselves to be very effective in actual hand-to-hand combat whereas most others haven't shown themselves to be worth much more than a deterrent to those who don't realize how ineffective they are.
So basically, the term martial arts is way too vague for the disagreement you're having. It's like arguing whether sports help you get in shape when one of you is thinking track and field and the other is thinking ping pong.