- Thread starter
- #5
We've already been through this 100x. There are a lot of confounding factors here. For instance:Its actually been debunked , affluence was the correlate for success not marshmallow self control
Which he should know as a clinical psychologist but being an IDW hack is more profitable so facts are whatever
These controls included measures of the child’s socioeconomic status, intelligence, personality, and behavior problems.
These are atrocious controls. Why? Because self control predicts almost all of those things. It predicts every single one of those factors aside from intelligence. Impulsivity predicts behavioral problems. Impulsivity predicts personality (most specifically the trait Conscientiousness.) Impulsivity predicts socioeconomic status. So when you pull each one of those out, you're basically measuring nothing. So of course you're going to find a smaller effect.
Affluent parents have high self-control, and then their kids pick up that self-control and become affluent.
There is mountains of research on this. Self-control is the best predictor of life success besides intelligence. And it's really close. Like come on... of course affluence predicts success, because self-control predicts affluence. Impulsivity is the best predictor of poverty, again aside from intelligence.
People with poor self control make poor decisions. Period. They choose junk food over healthy foods. They choose video games over exercise. They make rash and impulsive spending decisions. They have angry outbursts at those they love. They spend rather than save. They don't plan for the future. These behaviors are known as 'Conscientiousness.'
Who Does Well in Life? Conscientious Adults Excel in Both Objective and Subjective Success
This article investigates how personality and cognitive ability relate to measures of objective success (income and wealth) and subjective success (life satisfaction, positive affect, and lack of negative affect) in a representative sample of 9,646 American ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being careful, or diligent. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly. They exhibit a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; they display planned rather than spontaneous behavior; and they are generally dependable. It is manifested in characteristic behaviors such as being neat, and systematic; also including such elements as carefulness, thoroughness, and deliberation (the tendency to think carefully before acting.)[1] Conscientiousness is one of the five traits of both the Five Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality and is an aspect of what has traditionally been referred to as having character. Conscientious individuals are generally hard-working, and reliable. They are also likely to be conformists.[2] When taken to an extreme, they may also be "workaholics", perfectionists, and compulsive in their behavior.[3] People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success; they also are more likely to engage in antisocial and criminal behavior.[4]
And if you think Peterson is a 'hack' then you really don't pay attention to the field of Psychology. Even before his rise to fame he was one of the most accomplished researchers in psychology of this generation. On top of being a former Harvard professor and acclaimed researcher, he has over 11,000 citations, and had an h-index of over 50.
Jordan B Peterson
Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto - Cited by 21,847 - Psychology of Religion - Social Conflict - Personality - Clinical Psychology - Aggression
scholar.google.com
To put that in perspective, the average h-index of most Nobel Prize winners is around 40. Jordan Peterson is in the top 1% of the top 1% of research psychologists. If you think that's a 'hack' I would love to hear who you think is more reliable.
Self-control have been heavily researched is not contingent upon one experiment.
Last edited: