This is more of an IMHO or MPSIMS thread than elections, but since it’s political in nature I figured a mod would move it here anyway:
The “Marshmallow Test” is a famous psychological experiment where children are given a treat (not necessarily marshmallows; could be some other candy or treat they like) and told that if they eat it now, that’s all they’ll get, but if they can wait half an hour or an hour until the researcher returns to the room, they’ll be given more. Essentially, a test of delayed self-gratification.
So I was curious about this in politics: Not all elections are equally important. Suppose you were offered the choice of seeing your party/candidate win an election now, but at the cost of losing two elections in the near future thereafter, which would you take? (you can also choose to lose now, but win two elections thereafter)
(“Near future” being loosely defined as, within the next fifteen years)
I’d rather watch that than some of the debates, that’s for sure.
Edit: Too late to edit OP, but you can also magnify the test. You can win 2 now and lose 4 later, or lose 3 now and win 6 later, etc.
Not voting, because all elections are not equal. If I think the imminent one is crucially important, I’m going to choose to win it now, in the hope that the situation in the future will be less drastic. If I think the imminent one doesn’t matter much, then I’ll take the two in the future.
And I always thought that what the marshmallow test was actually testing for was far less the child’s degree of selfcontrol, and far more whether the child had been given reason in the past to trust or to distrust the promises of adults.
That’s an interesting take. Have you seen the videos of the children undergoing the test? I haven’t seen any in which the child is focused on whether or not they will get two marshmallows in the future. They all seem to be making some kind of effort to hold out and finding different ways of fighting the urge to receive instant gratification.
Full disclosure: I was one of the children in the original study, although I do not know what my response was.
Although it was my first reaction when I heard of the test, I’ve since seen it elsewhere – I don’t remember where, but I found several examples of people wondering about that effect on a fast google.
No, I haven’t. But I don’t think I could tell by watching the video whether a child’s uncertain whether the promise can be relied on. How would you expect to see that?
– Interesting that you were in the original study! I gather you don’t remember it clearly?
Not to be nit-picky, but there are few elections now. Do you mean in 2020? Because then I’d pick win now and lose later. My planet and country are too important to me to countenance another 4 years of ignorance and arrogance in the White House.
What does “lose in 2020” (or “win in 2020” for that matter) mean? Are we talking complete control of government for the winning side: Presidency, House, a 60+ vote super-majority in the Senate? Maybe 66+ Senators and 3/4 of the state legislatures? Just how extensive a win or a loss are we talking about?
It sort of depends on which election. I would be fine with Trump losing in 2020 and then a Republican winning in 2024 and 2028. Trump has already appointed two reasonable Justices to the Supreme Court, and has a chance at another, perhaps. That’s as much as I needed from him.
I am assuming a GOP President other than Trump being elected in 2024 and re-elected in 2028, because it couldn’t be Trump even if he was re-elected after losing in 2020. Two terms is all a President gets. So Biden gets into the Oval Office, mumblemouths his way thru one term, and then Pence or Romney or Ryan takes over for eight years. Works for me.
Both the Senators from my state are Dems, so if the deal is that one or both of them are re-elected to another term and then the GOP gets two turns, I would take that deal in a New York minute. Likewise my House representative - two more years of her, then four years of someone from the GOP - yes please.
The House in general? Two more years of Democratic control, or perhaps increasing their margin, and then four years of GOP control? Sure, why not. The Senate? I might swap the deal - keep, or increase control while the Dems control the White House, and then give back a majority to the Senate while the GOP controls the House and White House. Gridlock is not the worst-case scenario.
Let’s limit it to D’s and R’s, otherwise we’ll end up with some seriously bizarre hypotheticals, like “I’d win the presidency as a write-in candidate.”
I assumed the poll covered the elections in '20, '24 and '28, and I further assumed the D win in 2020 would be crushing – a thorough renunciation of the bigotry and idiocy of this administration. Our political system needs a complete reboot.
Yeah. I’d certainly take one Presidential election over two elections for Assistant Dogcatcher.
And even among elections for the same or equivalent offices: I’ve seen elections where I thought both candidates were almost equally good, or almost equally bad, as far as I could tell. And I’ve seen other elections where I’ve cared a lot more which candidate wins.
So it’s not a simple matter of now vs. later, or being able to delay gratification (or to trust that delayed gratification would be rewarded).
It’s as extensive as you want, but however extensive you win, then however extensive you lose.
So if you win the presidency in a 400-EV landslide and take 2/3 of both houses of Congress, then your loss (or losses) will be by the same margin.