[뉴욕타임스로 논술을 잡아라]Marshmallows and…

Marshmallows and Public Policy

May 7, 2006 / By David Brooks

■ 칼럼

Around 1970, Walter Mischel 1) launched a classic * experiment. He left a succession of 4-year-olds in a room with a bell and a marshmallow 2). If they rang the bell, he would come back and they could eat the marshmallow. If, however, they didn't ring the bell and waited for him to come back on his own, they could then have two marshmallows.

In videos of the experiment, you can see the children squirming, kicking, hiding their eyes - desperately trying to exercise self-control so they can wait and get two marshmallows. Their performance varied widely. Some broke down * and rang the bell within a minute. Others lasted 15 minutes.

The children who waited longer went on * to get higher SAT 3) scores. They got into better colleges and had, on average, better adult outcomes. The children who rang the bell quickest were more likely to become bullies *. They received worse teacher and parental evaluations 10 years on * and were more likely to have drug problems at age 32.

The Mischel experiments are worth noting because people in the policy world spend a lot of time thinking about how to improve education, how to reduce poverty, how to make the most of * the nation's human capital. But when policy makers address * these problems, they come up with * structural remedies: reduce class sizes, create more charter schools 4), increase teacher pay, mandate universal day care 5), try vouchers 6).

The results of these structural reforms are almost always disappointingly modest. And yet policy makers rarely ever probe deeper into problems and ask the core questions, such as how do we get people to master the sort of self-control that leads to success? To ask that question is to leave the policy makers' comfort zone 7) - which is the world of inputs and outputs, appropriations * and bureaucratic reform - and to enter the murky * world of psychology and human nature.

And yet the Mischel experiments, along with everyday experience, tell us that self-control is essential. Young people who can delay gratification can sit through sometimes boring classes to get a degree. They can perform rote * tasks in order to, say, master a language. They can avoid drugs and alcohol.

For people without self-control skills, however, school is a series of failed ordeals. No wonder they drop out. Life is a parade of foolish decisions: teen pregnancy, drugs, gambling, truancy and crime.

If you're a policy maker and you are not talking about core psychological traits like delayed gratification skills, then you're just dancing around * with proxy issues. You're not getting to the crux * of the problem.

The research we do have on delayed gratification tells us that differences in self-control skills are deeply rooted but also malleable *. Differences in the ability to focus attention and exercise control emerge very early, perhaps as soon as nine months. The prefrontal cortex 8) does the self-control work in the brain, but there is no consensus on how much of the ability to exercise self-control is hereditary * and how much is environmental.

The ability to delay gratification, like most skills, correlates with socioeconomic status and parenting styles. Children from poorer homes do much worse on delayed gratification tests than children from middle-class homes. That's probably because children from poorer homes are more likely to have their lives disrupted by marital breakdown, violence, moving, etc. They think in the short term because there is no predictable long term.

The good news is that while differences in the ability to delay gratification emerge early and persist *, that ability can be improved with conscious effort. Moral lectures don't work. Sheer willpower doesn't seem to work either. The children who resisted eating the marshmallow didn't stare directly at it and exercise iron discipline. On the contrary, they were able to resist their appetites because they were able to distract * themselves, and think about other things.

What works, says Jonathan Haidt, the author of ''The Happiness Hypothesis,'' is creating stable, predictable environments for children, in which good behavior pays off - and practice. Young people who are given a series of tests that demand self-control get better at it over time.

This pattern would be too obvious to mention if it weren't so largely ignored by educators and policy makers. Somehow we've entered a world in which we obsess over structural reforms and standardized tests, but skirt * around the moral and psychological traits that are at the heart of actual success. Walter Mischel tried to interest New York schools in programs based on his research. Needless to say, he found almost no takers.

■ 돋보기 - 널리 알려진 심리실험 활용하면 인간-사회 관련 논술에 유용

이 세상에는 따분한 공부보다도 현기증 나게 재밌는 것이 너무 많습니다. 좋은 책을 읽고, 논술 공부를 하고, 수능시험을 준비하는 것보다는, PC방에 가서 게임을 하고 영화를 보고 때로는 친구들과 어울려 놀이를 하는 것이 훨씬 재밌습니다. 결국 공부 잘하는 아이들은 이러한 유혹을 이겨내고 수업에 열중하고 책에 매달리는 아이들입니다. 눈부신 유혹을 이겨내면 눈부신 성공을 맞이한다는 말도 있습니다.

인간관계에서도 분노를 폭발시키고 싶은 충동이 일어날 때가 있습니다. 그러나 감정에 따라 행동을 하고나면 곧 후회하게 되기 쉽지요. 화났을 때 충동적으로 행동한 결과로 인간관계에 돌이킬 수 없는 손상을 입을 수도 있습니다. 학창생활은 물론이고 사회생활에서도 충동과 유혹을 억제하는 습관이 일생에서 큰 도움이 됩니다.

심리 실험은 인간의 본성과 역사적 사건이나 사회현상의 관련성을 이해하는 데 큰 실마리를 제공합니다. 20세기는 마시멜로 실험처럼 인간 본성에 대한 이해를 깊게 해주는 천재적인 실험이 많았습니다.

B F 스키너의 보상과 처벌에 관한 행동주의 이론은 평소 멀쩡하던 사람이 연기 자욱한 카지노에서 돈이 다 털릴 때까지 도박을 하는 이유를 설명해 줍니다. 지성과 교양을 갖췄던 나치 정권의 독일 장교들은 어떤 이유로 히틀러의 비이성적이고 잔인한 명령에 복종했을까?(스탠리 밀그램의 충격 기계와 권위에 대한 복종 실험) 사람들은 왜 20달러를 주었을 때보다 1달러를 주었을 때 설득이 더 잘 되는가?(레온 페스팅거의 인지부조화 연구) 가난한 사람이 부자에 비해 약물 중독에 잘 빠져드는 이유는 무엇일까?(브루스 알렉산더의 마약중독 실험) 인간의 기억은 왜 선택적으로 저장되는가?(에릭 칸델의 기억 실험)

인구에 회자되는 심리 실험의 내용을 파악하고 논술에서 자기주장을 펴는 데 적절히 활용하는 방안을 공부하기 바랍니다.

황호택 논설위원