Can Women Domesticate Men? The Science of the #MeToo Movement, Anthropology, and Female Bonobos
By Heath Shive

The effect of the #MeToo Movement was immediate and powerful.

Millions of women began to share their experiences of sexual harassment and assault on Twitter.  From shared experience came shared encouragement, which progressed to shared empowerment. 

A lot of power. 

In time, evidence accumulated and the voices of women could destroy the success of very powerful men, from business leaders (Harvey Weinstein), to celebrities (Louis C. K. and Aziz Ansari), to legends (Bill Cosby), and members of Congress (Al Franken). 

Accusations alone were enough to ruin some careers.  Young men were banished from college campuses on hearsay alone.  In time, even some women – from female Harvard academics to a conservative Secretary of Education – began to warn of the dangers of abandoning due process. 

This is #MeToo in the short term.

But what could the long term effects be?

Could female empowerment change the evolution of human beings?

To the science of anthropology!

Girl Power? Thy Name Is Bonobo

Chimpanzee and bonobo primates are genetically very similar.  They are so similar that bonobos weren’t considered a separate species until well into the 20th century.  Before that recognition, bonobo skulls were considered to be unusually large skulls of chimpanzee juveniles. 

But there are differences between the 2 species.  Sexual dimorphism (the physical differences between males and females) is less pronounced in bonobos, with males barely bigger than females.  Bonobo skulls are rounder.  But the most pronounced difference is social.  Bonobo primates are not nearly as ultraviolent as chimpanzees.

And females are in charge!

As you might have read in a previous blog article, infanticide and homicide rates among non-human primates seem almost sociopathic!  Males dominate males, females dominate females.  Toddlers are killed as potential threats to resources. 

But not the bonobos. 

So why the profound difference?  Well, for starters, bonobo females dominate (or discipline, if you wish) the group.  If a male becomes too pushy or aggressive, the female bonobo screams.  All females in the area converge. 

Female bonobos look out for each other. 

The result is that aggressive males cannot breed.  Aggression – at least on the male chromosome – is weeded out of the gene pool. 

Bonobo “sisterhood” domesticated the species.

Domestication Destiny

Dogs descended from wolves, but their differences are obvious. Dogs are more likely to have floppy ears, larger heads proportional to the body, less dramatic sexual dimorphism, and broader muzzles. 

In other words, dogs look more like wolf cubs than wolves!  That’s what domestication does to an animal species.  Sexual dimorphism is decreased.  Heads and eyes are bigger in proportion to body.  There are fewer violent tendencies and a greater tendency to play. 

Physically juvenile qualities were not bred into the dogs, rather these qualities “piggy-backed” on the genes that favored less reactive violence.

Domesticating Men?
​
Richard Wrangham has a book out that is very much in vogue right now entitled The Goodness Paradox.

Wrangham – an anthropologist – noticed that human reactive violence (killing your neighbors) is very low, whereas our proactive violence (like war) is very high – the exact opposite of other species! 

Wrangham also noticed that – when compared to our mid-Pleistocene (“cave man”) ancestors – sexual dimorphism is less pronounced in humans today.

In other words, Wrangham saw evidence of “domestication” in human beings. 

But how?  Where were the “shepherds” of humanity?

Wrangham in his book makes the point that as language evolved, so did communication. 

As humans could gossip, complain, and share experiences – especially about how they hated their oppressor – they could also strategize, plan, and judge.  Wrangham says that language gave birth to cooperation – principally among the other males – and the ultra-violent that “crossed the line” were executed.

Hence the beginning of social law – and the culling of the ultra-violent DNA out of the human gene pool. 

Can Women Do the Same?

If women can censure aggressive men (“toxic masculinity”), than women can control which men mate, and therefore which genes continue to the next generation.

Unlike many of my friends, I think that equality of the sexes has long since arrived in the United States - certainly the tools for equality are already here.  What has been lacking is self-actualization.  MeToo served as a kind of oriflamme to this cause. 

Hopefully it evolves from here – both in power and responsibility.  

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Wrangham, Richard.  The Goodness Paradox: The Strange Relationship Between Virtue and Violence in Human Evolution.  Pantheon Books, 2019.  

Red Republicans, Blue Democrats: Political Identity and the Psychology of Colors
By Heath Shive

Part of the blessing of thinking is the curse of overthinking. 

Children see pretty colors. Adults…overthink this.

We can see green in the leaves and grass.  But green is symbolic too – of St Patrick’s Day, Irish Catholic politics, and of Islamic culture.  

Orange can remind us of citrus fruit…or Irish Protestant politics, Halloween, and the Orange Revolution. 

Somewhere along the way, Americans associated Republicans and Democrats with “red” states and “blue” states. 

This relatively recent color coding has been credited to the broadcast networks' election coverage during the 1980s, but was locked in during the 2000 Presidential election campaign.  

Is it that simple?

Let's overthink this.

To the science of primary colors and political identity!

Embodied Cognition

Embodied cognition is a concept in psychology which asserts that not only do humans ascribe a metaphor or belief to a sensation, but sensations imprint feelings onto the human mind. 

To influence a person’s sensory input is to influence their mental thinking.

In 2005, psychologist Danny Hayes studied "trait ownership" in politics and discovered that people generally ascribe “hard” qualities to Republicans and “soft” qualities to Democrats.

Do political views have a "hardness" or "softness"?  And does the opposite happen, does hardness connect to a political idea?

Three psychologists – Michael Slepian, Nicholas Rule, and Nalini Abady – published a paper in 2012 that revealed the power of hard and soft sensations on thinking.  In one experiment, they had the participants squeeze either a soft ball or hard ball.  While squeezing the balls, the participants had to look at four male and four female faces and guess each face’s political orientation. 

Those who squeezed a soft ball were more likely to guess Democrat; those who squeezed a hard ball were more likely to guess Republican. 

Embodied cognition! 

But how does color come into play?

Red State, Blue State

In a previous blog ("Devil in a Red Dress"), I wrote about the psychological connections between the color red and the human mind. 

Waitresses wearing red get tipped more.  The color red can make women more attractive to men, and vice versa. 

But this blog is about politics, not sex appeal. 

Two researchers Anthony Little and Russell Hill experimented to see if the color red conveyed dominance even in inanimate objects.  People were shown blue circles and red circles.  Then they were asked which circle seemed more dominant. 

The participants judged the red circle more dominant.

Circles are not famous for dominance.  And no state looks red or blue from outer space.  But still, we associate certain colors with certain feelings, and vice versa.   

Conclusion

So let’s combine the thoughts of the above studies.  Republicans are perceived to have more hard-line political views.  Hardness communicates assertion, strength, and power.

People can be forgiven if they naturally associate the color red with Republicans. 

What are the stereotypical associations with the color blue?   Peace, acceptance, and higher thought.  People can be forgiven if they naturally associate blue with Democrats.   

The funny thing is that Republicans for most of the 20th century were associated with the color blue! 

So what is different now in the psychology of the political landscape?

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
D. Hayes (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: a theory of trait ownership.  American Journal of Political Science, 49 (4), 908-23.

A. C. Little and R. A. Hill (2007). Attribution to red suggests special role in dominance signaling.  Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5 (1-4), 161-68.

M. L. Slepian, N. O. Rule, and N. Ambady (2012). Proprioception and person perception: Politicians and professors.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39 (12), 1621-28.

For more about embodied cognition, see:
Lobel, Thalma.  Sensation: The New Science of Physical Intelligence.  Atria Books, 2014. 

Your Greatest Threat Is From Your Own Species: The Science of Animal Murder and Disney Delusions 
By Heath Shive

Spring has arrived.  The birds are singing.  But it isn't peaceful. 

Bird song is a declaration of territory, a warning to competitors, an announcement of virility, a call to feeding, a warning of danger, and a cry of anger.   
 
Species can always threaten another species.

But in Nature, the greatest threat comes from your own species. 

To the gruesome science of when animals kill their own kind.

Disney Delusions

In a Disney movie, animals talk to each other.  They enjoy profound conversations.  They save their friends.

Humans are bad.  Humans are sinful and wicked…unless they have animal friends.

Humans have destroyed a lot of animal habitat - forests cleared for farming, rivers dammed for electricity.  Humans could – and must – do this constructively. 

But the greatest threat to any animal's life (including human life) comes from your own species. 

Because you all eat from the same bowl, so to speak.

Red in Tooth and Claw

Researchers up to the 1960s thought that primates (except humans) were benign, social, and harmless. 

But the more anthropologists were in the field, the more they witnessed how ultraviolent primates can be.  Follow this link to learn more of the Gombe Chimpanzee War. 

Infanticide occurs in half of all mammal species.  For example, new alpha lions will kill all the cubs of the pride’s predecessor – while the mother lionesses watch.    

But among primates, infanticide happens with horrific frequency.  Infanticide could be as high as 37% among mountain gorillas, 44% in chacma baboons, 47% in blue monkeys, and 71% among red howler monkeys. 

Baby chimps are not killed by leopards or poachers nearly as much as they killed by other chimpanzees. 

Adult animals "murder" adults too.  For example, a study of 155 wolf corpses in Yellowstone Park over 12 years revealed that 37% of the wolves had been killed by other wolves. 

Not all species have these kind of intra-species “homicide” rates – but they are found particularly in social carnivores (packs) and primates. 

Now compare these rates with humans.  How often do babies die by infanticide?  Is it even 1%? 

What is the murder rate of human beings?  Is it near the 40% mark of wolves?

The Goodness Paradox

Anthropologist Richard Wrangham wrote a remarkable book entitled The Goodness Paradox. 

Wrangham points out that humans have a profound capacity for good and compassion, but how do we reconcile that with humanity’s equally profound appetite for destruction?

Wragham argues that there are 2 forms of violence: reactive violence (violence in response to an immediate threat or perceived threat) and proactive violence (planned, strategic, and intentional). 

Two men fighting in a bar is reactive violence.  Two nations going to war is proactive violence. 

Wrangham remarks that humans are unique in the animal world – because humans are phenomenally low in reactive violence while being extremely high in proactive violence. 

It’s the exact opposite in the animal world. 

Wrangham’s central hypothesis in the book is this: humans evolved uniquely from other primates because we found a way to “self-domesticate.”

Conclusion

Put 300 chimpanzees on an airplane and when the plane lands, you’ll find dead chimps. 

But humans ride airplanes all the time without incident.  That explains how humans can form large groups, whereas other animal species cannot. 

This is how humans can build civilization, whereas primates and wolves cannot.  

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Cubaynes, Sarah,Daniel R. MacNulty, Daniel R. Stahler, Kira A. Quimby, Douglas W. Smith, and Tim Coulson. 2014. “Density-dependent intraspecific aggression regulates survival in northern Yellowstone wolves (Canis lupus).” Journal of Animal Ecology 83: 1344-56.

Infanticide data from Watt 1989; Henzi et al. 2003; Butynski 1982; Crockett and Sekulic 1984. 

Butynski, T. M. 1982. “Harem-male replacement and infanticide in the blue monkey (Cercopithecus mitis stuhlmanni) in the Kibale Forest, Uganda.” American Journal of Primatology 3: 1-22. 

Crockett, Caroline M., and Ranka Sekulic.  1984.  “Infanticide in red howler monkeys (Alouatta seniculus).” In Infanticide: comparative and evolutionary perspectives, edited by G. Hausfater and S. B. Hrdy, pp. 173-91.  New York: Aldine. 

Watts, David P. 1989. “Infanticide in mountain gorillas: new cases and a reconsideration of the evidence.” Ethology 81: 1-18.

Wrangham, Richard.  The Goodness Paradox.  Pantheon Books, 2019. 

More than an Easter Bunny: 5 Famous Rabbits From Around the World
By Heath Shive

1)  Why do we have an Easter Bunny?  

The use of an Easter bunny was formerly credited to the Saxon goddess of spring, Eostre.  But the only surviving mention of this goddess is by the medieval historian the Venerable Bede - who doesn't associate a rabbit with her at all! 

Ancient and medieval cultures around the world associated rabbits with springtime.  Rabbits begin their mating season as early as February and continue to September.  The rabbits would chase each other in courtship which - when combined with their large litter sizes - made rabbits a symbol of the growing fertility of the spring season. 

The pagan symbolism of the rabbit was vouchsafed by the early Christian church. 

But, the use of a rabbit who hides colored eggs for Easter is generally credited to the German Lutherans.  Early Protestants - unlike old-school Catholics - didn't abstain from eating eggs during Lent. 

Eggs were colored as apropos for the season.  But while many ancient cultures decorated their eggs, it was the Germans who created the Osterhase, or what we call the Easter Bunny, a rabbit who brings colored eggs for children.  The tradition was brought to America by German immigrants. 

Sounds crazy?  But rabbits are often thought of as crazy - which is why the British have an expression...

2) ...Mad as a March hare.  Rabbits have an infamous fecundity - producing large litters after relatively short gestation periods.  This hyperactive fertility can cause males to act strangely - running in circles and hopping vertically.  Males can get too aggressive in the their courtship - which is why females often fight to protect themselves.  A lawn full of fighting  fertile rabbits?  Rabbits would look crazy, hence "mad as a March hare." 

The most famous March Hare is the character in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. 

Many cultures didn't just think a rabbit was "mad," but instead was...

3) ...a masterful trickster.  

The rabbit trickster is very common in Northern Native cultures, but he has a different name wherever you go.  The rabbit trickster was called Glosscap by Eastern Native nations and Wisakedjak by the Cree farther west.  

Nanabozho was a trickster spirit, a primordial deity born at the beginning of time.  He was also a lying, stealing, and manipulative con-man too.  Nanabozho could take many forms, but was a rabbit most frequently.
​
But the trickster rabbit was also famous in western and southern African cultures!  The people of Senegal called him Leuk. 

4) But we know him better as Br'er Rabbit, or Brother Rabbit.  

Br'er Rabbit is the star of many of the Uncle Remus stories of the Old South.  He outwits kings and peasants and every predator in the woods with his wits alone.  Br'er Rabbit - like all tricksters - is morally ambiguous.  He can be larcenous or heroic.  But he always proves that even the physically small and weak can win - provided they have the wits. 

Br'er Rabbit has fallen into disfavor in the current political climate, but...

5)...the trickster rabbit survives today as Bugs Bunny!  

Bugs Bunny is the premier character of the Warner Brothers cartoon classics.  Bugs is flippant, insouciant, and confident.  Bugs is shown to be able to outsmart any of his antagonists - all of whom are trying to do Bugs harm.  But while talking with a Brooklyn accent, and starting his repartee with a "What's up, doc?", Bugs always proves his nonchalant superiority and becomes the very model of cartoon "cool." 

According to Guinness World Records, Bugs Bunny is the 9th most portrayed film personality in the world!  Bugs even has his own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!      

Devil in a Red Dress: How Color Affects Men, Women, and Our Sex Drives 
By Heath Shive

Did you know that men tip waitresses more when the women wear red?

Psychologist Nicolas Gueguen published a paper on this little color insight.

But it doesn’t stop there.  

The story goes that matadors use red capes because the color provokes the bulls, and baboons flash a red butt to signal status. 

Does red bring out the animal…in you?

This is called embodied cognition, and psychologist Thalma Lobel has written an entire book about it called Sensation: The New Science of Physical Intelligence – which is where I found following studies. 

To the science!

Are Men Suckers for Red?

Researchers Andrew Elliot and Daniela Niesta published a study in 2008.  They showed 2 groups of men a black-and-white photo of a young woman for about 5 seconds.  Both groups of men saw the same woman - but half of the men saw on the picture with a red background and the other half saw the picture on a white background.

The men were then asked to rate the woman’s attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 9. 

The men who saw the woman on a red background rated her as more attractive than the men who saw the white background.

Typical oversexed men, right?

But...

Are Women Suckers for Red Too?

In 2010, researchers (again including Elliot and Niesta) performed a similar experiment on women.  Women were shown the picture of a man.  But the women either saw the picture with a red, white or gray background. 

As expected, women who saw the picture of the man with a red background rated him as more attractive and more desirable than the women who saw the other backgrounds. 

Red has a measurable effect on humans. 

But don’t get carried away, guys.  Just because an effect is measurable does not mean it is of primary significance.  
 
Though women seem to succeed with wearing red dresses, there’s a reason men don’t wear red suits, looking like cartoonish villains. 

But observe the color of a politician’s tie, a rich man’s car, or even a stop sign.

Red gets our attention.

Conclusion

Psychology frequently tells us that our instincts and experiences (our insides) affect our actions in the outside world.

But studies can also show that the outside world (its colors, smells, sounds, and textures) affect our inner selves and thinking too. 

Whether we admit it or not, we are all are sensual creatures.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!
Sources:
A. J. Elliot and D. Niesta (2008).  Romantic red: Red enhances men’s attraction to women.  Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (5), 1150-1164.

A.J. Elliot, D. Niesta Kayser, T. Greitenmeyer, S. Lichtensfeld, R. H. Gramzow, M. A. Maier, and H. Liu (2010). Red, rank, and romance in women viewing men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139 (3), 399-417.

Lobel, Thalma.  Sensation: The New Science of Physical Intelligence.  Atria Books, 2014. 

N. Gueguen and C Jacob (2012). Clothing color and tipping: Gentlemen patrons give more tips to waitresses with red clothes. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, April 18, 2012.

The First Cherry Blossoms of Washington D.C...Were Burned to Protect America from Foreign Invasion?
By Heath Shive

The famous cherry trees of Washington, D.C., will begin blooming on March 20, peaking on April 4th.  

The trees are beautiful, iconic, and worthy of an American's bucket list.

And the first batch was destroyed to protect America from foreign invaders. 

Why?

To the history!

The Food Explorer David Fairchild

In the later 1800s, the U.S. adopted a largely unregulated gold standard which – when combined with mass production – created what economists called “the Long Depression.”

Between 1870 and 1895, the price for a bushel of corn dropped from 43 cents to 30 cents.  A bushel of wheat worth $1.06 in 1870 had lost almost 40 percent of its value by 1900.  
 
Realizing that American farmers needed more variety than just corn and wheat, the U.S. Department of Agriculture sent out "food explorer" David Fairchild to gather seeds and plantings from around the world. 

Fairchild is credited with introducing nectarines, avocadoes, mangoes, soybeans, and kale to the U.S.  

But Fairchild’s wife Marian loved Japanese flowering cherry trees, and when the Fairchilds finally bought their first home outside D.C. in 1906, Marian ordered over 100 flowering cherry trees. 

The Fairchild’s lawn become famous in the capital.

Flower Power

Then-president William Howard Taft had also been to Japan and had loved their flowering cherry trees. But here’s the thing: mainstream America was xenophobic just then.  There had been a general ban on all Asian immigrants – especially Chinese – for decades.  By 1907, Japanese and Korean immigrants in California were forced into segregated neighborhoods. 

And it wasn’t good to make Japan mad.  Japan was a rising world power.  From 1895 to 1905, Japan had successfully won wars against China and Russia. 

Planting beautiful Japanese flowering cherry trees in America's capital carried political importance.   

So 300 flowering cherry trees were shipped from Tokyo to Washington, D.C.

There was just one problem.  Or rather, thousands of tiny problems.
 
The Fruit Man vs. the Bug Man

Charles Marlatt was the USDA’s chief entomologist.  When California’s crops were being destroyed by the San Jose scale (an invasive insect), it was Marlatt who had saved the day by bringing back the scale’s natural predator - ladybugs. 

Yes, Charles Marlatt was the man who introduced ladybugs to the United States!  But during the trip to Asia, Marlatt's wife contracted disease and died.  

Foreign crops were Fairchild's fame, but Marlatt's pain. 

Marlatt inspected the imported cherry trees and found them rife with pestilence: root gall, 2 kinds of scale bugs, a new species of borer, and 6 more dangerous insect species. 

Taft had no choice but to burn the entire lot of trees, which newspapers made into a public spectacle.   

Taft and the diplomatic corps were afraid of Japan’s reaction, but Japan expressed only shame – shame that they had given so inferior a gift. 

Conclusion

New trees were sent, and these trees passed even Marlatt’s scrutiny.

And on March 27, 1912, First Lady Helen Taft planted the first tree and the Japanese ambassador’s wife planted the second tree. 

A century later, the trees still bloom, and national news networks use the blossoming as a kind of harbinger of spring.

In fact, Americans love the trees so much, that no one cares that these trees don’t make cherries.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Stone, Daniel.  The Food Explorer: The True Adventures of the Globe-Trotting Botanist Who Transformed What America Eats. Dutton, 2018.

Bad Choices, Bad Turns, Bad Relationships: The Psychology of Stubborn
By Heath Shive
​
Obstinate people think that it is a virtue to be stubborn.   

Why is it hard for us to change our minds, our jobs, our relationships, or our lives?

There is no inherent virtue in inflexibility.  After all, the chair that I sit on is unchanging – but my chair is neither faithful nor wise. 

But, scientifically, all humans might be programmed to be a little stubborn. 

Why?

To the science!

My Mug, My Chocolate, My Choice?

In a 1989 paper, economist Jack Knetsch asked one group of students to choose between a coffee mug and a chocolate bar.

Of these students, 44% wanted the chocolate bar, 56% wanted mug. 

Knetsch gave a second group only coffee mugs – but they could exchange for chocolate later, if they wanted. 

Knetsch gave a third group nothing but chocolate bars – but they could exchange for mugs later, if they wanted. 

One would expect that 44% of the students would have traded mugs for chocolate, and that 56% would have traded chocolate for mugs, right? 

No!  Only about 10% of the students wanted to exchange!

Knetsch’s experiment is used to demonstrate the endowment effect – that a person ascribes more value to something when he owns it. 

But psychologist Richard Thaler interpreted the experiment differently in his book Nudge. 

Thaler thought the experiment demonstrated “choice inertia” – that we do not like to change our minds.

We have an instinct to be stubborn.

Stubborn In The Face of Facts

Social psychologists M. Deutsch and H. Gerard performed a study on 3 different groups of college students.  The students had to estimate the lengths of some lines.

One group guessed mentally without revealing their estimate.  Another group had to write down their estimates, sign the paper, and hand these papers to the experimenter. 

All students could change their mind as new evidence was introduced.

The students that only mentally guessed were the most likely to change their minds.  But the students that wrote, singed, announced their guess were the least likely to change their decision.

The more effort we put into a decision, the more stubborn we become.

Betting On the Wrong Horse

Back in the 1960s, psychologists R. E. Knox and J. A. Inkster performed a study at a horse track.  Knox and Inkster discovered that gamblers were more confident about their bet after they made their gamble.

There was no change in facts.  The horses, the track, and the weather were all the same.  But 30 seconds after they made their bet, they were more confident of winning.

Humans can delude themselves about the facts, if it reinforces their earlier decision.

To be stubborn is to be deluded.

Conclusion

Why are we pre-disposed to stick to our choices?

There is something called prospect theory, which – and this is my translation – means that we make choices based on imagined results, rather than factual probability. 

Nobody gains skill, romance, or achievement after only one attempt.

We have to try and try again – imagining that someday we will win or that we will be proven right.  This is perseverance - and it might be a human instinct.

So what is the difference between stubborn and perseverance?

We are stubborn when we pervert our innate optimism to serve our egos, in spite of the facts and results.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Deutsch, M., and H. B. Gerard. “A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influences upon Individual Judgment.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51 (1955): 629-36.

Knetsch, Jack L., "The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves," American Economic Review, 1989, 79, 1277-1284.

Knox, R. E., and J. A. Inkster.  “Postdecisional Dissonance at Post Time.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(1968): 319-323. 

Thaler, Ricard. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, 2008.     

Would You Pass the Marshmallow Test?  Success and Delayed Gratification
By Heath Shive

There are a lot of books and commercials and gurus telling us that we need to be "happy."  They tell us how to be happy, how to quest for happiness, how to attain happiness, and what is wrong with us if we are not "happy."  They seem to think that the purpose of life is to grab hold of happiness and God help you if you ever let go.

But what if happiness wasn't the point?  What if happiness was only at the end of hard work - similar to how dessert was at the end of a meal?  

And speaking of desserts, do you like marshmallows?  

Scientists at Stanford University once used marshmallows to test the willpower of children.  And then the children grew up.  What did they find?

To the science!

The Marshmallow Test

In the 1960s, the psychologist Walter Mischel devised "the marshmallow test" to measure the willpower of children. 

Mischel and other psychologists at Stanford University presented the children with a challenge: they could either eat a marshmallow now, or wait 15 minutes and eat 2 marshmallows. 

Only a third of the kids were able to resist the temptation.

This in itself isn't all that weird. 

But Mischel and the other psychologists found the same children years later and discovered something peculiar. 

The kids who showed self-control grew up to be more accomplished both socially and academically.  On the average, the kids had higher SAT scores, greater educational attainment, and a lower body mass index. 

Is there a correlation between success and delayed gratification?  

Conclusion

There was a book - a bestseller 20 years ago - entitled The Millionaire Next Door.  The authors Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko found that the majority of millionaires in their study didn't become rich by being doctors, lawyers, and CEOs. 

The majority of millionaires lived in modest houses and had ordinary careers.  The millionaires "next door" became wealthy by a lifetime of frugality and savings.  For a middle-class American, it would take 40 years of chronic investment to be a millionaire...but that's precisely how most millionaires acquired their wealth!  

Not glamorous.  Just delayed.  Success by constant willpower and self-discipline. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources: 
Mischel, Walter; Ebbesen, Ebbe B.; Raskoff Zeiss, Antonette (1972). "Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 21 (2): 204–218.

Stanley, Thomas J. & William D. Danko.  The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy.  Longstreet Press, 1996.