On Delayed Gratification: Root of an American Cultural Lie

27 min readMar 4, 2022

I have already mentioned the concept of delayed gratification, or delay for gratification, in a previous essay on health. Delayed gratification is often hailed as a virtue, especially in the work-and-wealth-oriented culture of the United States. It is also the root of one of American culture’s biggest lies. To understand why, we must first understand what delayed gratification means and how it fits into our lives, for better or worse.

What Is Delayed Gratification?

To start, let us take a common definition of delayed gratification. Delayed gratification means resisting an immediate reward for the sake of a greater reward in the future.[i] There are various interpretations of “reward” in this context. In behavioral psychology, (1) a reward means a stimulus that reinforces a particular behavior.[ii] A more neuroscientific interpretation is that (2) a reward is something pleasurable.[iii] And the last interpretation that can be inferred from the use of the word in some delayed gratification studies is that (3) a reward is something we want, i.e., an object of desire.[iv] In this essay, I will address all three interpretations of reward in the context of delayed gratification, each illuminating a different aspect of delayed gratification.

Reward as an Object of Desire

Working backward from the three interpretations of a reward, let us look at (3) a reward being something we want, i.e., an object of desire. There is a quote I heard recently that explains this interpretation well. The speaker states, “The reason most people fail is because they give up what they want most for what they want now.”[v] According to the speaker, failure means not delaying for gratification. Delayed gratification means resisting “what we want now” (immediate desire) for “what we want most” (greater desire in the future). For simplicity in this essay, we will refer to immediate desires as immediate desires and greater desires in the future as future desires.

Goals are a good example of future desires. For example, take a high school student with the goal of getting into their dream college. To achieve this goal and obtain their future desire, the student works very hard and must resist many of their immediate desires. This may include not going to the beach with friends, skipping the homecoming game, or losing sleep. These are just a few of the many immediate desires one may have to resist to obtain their future desire of getting into their dream college.

Another example of a future desire is the money earned from working a job. Many people do not enjoy their job, and many people would not work without payment. Hence, most people resist whatever immediate desires they cannot obtain while working to obtain their future desire of monetary payment. Then they can use this money for whatever immediate desires they can obtain outside of work (e.g., going shopping, getting drinks, etc.)

This example also lends itself to the example of saving money. Suppose we save a fifth of our months’ paycheck to go vacation in Vancouver. We must resist spending that saved money on many other smaller expenses such as clothing, movie tickets, etc. The former is a future desire whereas the latter are immediate desires. Because of financial limitations, we must resist our immediate desires so that we may obtain our future desire.

Comparing Immediate Desires to Future Desires

These are simple examples taken from my own experiences and experiences of other people I know. But it does not end there. Most of our future desires require us to resist our immediate desires. The question is, when do we resist and when do we not? In other words, when do we delay for gratification?

To decide whether or not to delay for gratification, we must have some way to measure future desires in comparison to immediate desires. Delaying for gratification is worth it only when obtaining a future desire outweighs the sum of obtaining all immediate desires resisted in the process of delaying. All other situations mean that is not worth it to delay for gratification. That is to say, whenever the sum of obtaining all immediate desires is equal to or outweighs obtaining a future desire that required delaying.

Unfortunately, in my life, I experienced the latter situations almost exclusively to that of the former. What some may claim are my “best” accomplishments occurred after endless hours resisting my immediate desires to obtain a future desire. I thought that obtaining my future desire would outweigh all the immediate desires I resisted in the process of delaying, and hence why I decided to delay for gratification. But I was wrong.

Within a short amount of time, the feeling that came with obtaining my future desire quickly vanished, and I would be left asking myself, “Did obtaining this future desire really outweigh all the immediate desires I resisted in the process of delaying? Was delaying for gratification actually worth it?”

Reward as Pleasure

To answer this, we have to understand how to compare the obtainment of desires against each other. Referring to our initial interpretations of rewards in the context of delayed gratification, we see the answer is already there. The (3) reward of delayed gratification is not only an object of desire but (2) the pleasure from obtaining this desire.

The question of whether it is worth it to delay for gratification then becomes: Does the pleasure from obtaining a future desire outweigh the sum of pleasure from obtaining all immediate desires resisted in the process of delaying?

Again, for the sake of simplicity, I will refer to the pleasure from obtaining a future desire that requires delaying as future pleasure or FP, and I will refer to the pleasure from obtaining an immediate desire resisted in the process of delaying as immediate pleasure or IP.

Levels of Pleasure

Some things are more pleasurable than others. Thus, we can judge pleasures against one another and group them into levels. At the bottom, there are often immediate, sometimes bodily pleasures. Examples might include eating a delicious meal, doing drugs, or having casual sex. We feel the pleasure immediately and intensely, but the feeling is usually very simple and very fleeting. We may refer to these as “lower” level pleasures.

Then there are greater pleasures. We may refer to these as “higher” level pleasures. They are not usually felt with the same intensity as “lower” level pleasures, although the feeling is usually much deeper and persists much longer. Examples of these might be learning a new skill, spending time with loved ones, or helping other people.

This is a brief overview of levels of pleasure, and I do not think a deeper analysis is necessary for this discussion. I am actually borrowing this idea from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who covers levels of pleasure in much greater detail in his book, Utilitarianism.[vi] For this essay, however, it is enough to note that there are different pleasures and some are more pleasurable than others.

Cases of When to Delay or When Not to Delay

Now, to answer the question of whether it is worth it to delay for gratification, we see there are three obvious cases to consider. Case one (I) is when the future pleasure does not outweigh the sum of all immediate pleasures. Case two (II) is when the future pleasure equals the sum of all immediate pleasures. And case three (III) is when the future pleasure does outweigh the sum of all immediate pleasures.

Thus, we have the following cases:

FP < Σ IP
FP = Σ IP
FP > Σ IP

Case one (I) does not justify delaying for gratification since the future pleasure does not outweigh the sum of all immediate pleasures. Thus, it is not worth it to delay. Case two (II) also does not justify delaying for gratification because if the future pleasure is equal to the sum of all immediate pleasures, then again, it is not worth it to delay. So, that leaves us with only case three (III), which we will analyze now.

The First Circumstance (i) of Case Three (III)

There are two circumstances of case three (III). The first circumstance (i) is where immediate pleasures and future pleasure are easily comparable in so far as the immediate desires are equal in quality to the future desire, but differ in quantity. In other words, the first circumstance (i) is when the objects of immediate desires are the same object of a future desire. The best example of this circumstance is from the famous psychology study on delayed gratification commonly referred to as the “Stanford Marshmallow Experiment”.

In this study, psychologist Walter Mischel examines the ability of children to delay for gratification. Michel and others ran different experimental variations of this study, but the overall idea is to offer young children two options: one marshmallow (or pretzel stick depending on the child’s preference) that they can eat immediately or two marshmallows if they wait approximately 15 minutes.[vii] The purpose of this study is to measure children’s ability to delay for gratification, and in follow-up studies, to measure how this ability compares with various future life outcomes, such as SAT score[viii] and educational attainment.[ix]

This example falls under the first circumstance (i) of case three (III) because the immediate desires and future desire are identical in quality (the object of desire in both is a marshmallow), but differ in quantity (one marshmallow versus two marshmallows). In a circumstance like this (i), we can conclude it is worth it to delay for gratification when the quantity of the object of a future desire is larger than the quantity of the objects of immediate desires because the future pleasure will outweigh the immediate pleasures. However, this is a very unlikely circumstance since objects of desire are hardly ever the same, and deciding to delay for gratification in life is never as easy as comparing one marshmallow to two.

The Second Circumstance (ii) of Case Three (III)

In the second circumstance (ii) of case three (III), immediate pleasure and future pleasure are not comparable only in terms of quantity because the objects of immediate desires are not the same object of a future desire.

However, I claim that regardless of the objects of immediate desires or future desire, any given future pleasure can only ever marginally outweigh any given immediate pleasure. Resisting immediate desires is not sufficient enough to increase the pleasure from obtaining any future desire compared to obtaining any immediate desire. The pleasure from obtaining any object of desire will be the same whether it is an object of a future desire or an object of an immediate desire. This is because both future pleasures and immediate pleasures occur in the transitory moment of obtaining a desire, and like the aforementioned “lower” pleasures, they are simple and fleeting. Thus, any given future pleasure cannot outweigh any given immediate pleasure beyond a marginal degree.

Moreover, due to this marginal difference, we are less likely to see this circumstance (ii) occur. Since any future pleasure is only marginally more pleasurable than any immediate pleasure, then as the process of delayed gratification continues over time, more and more immediate pleasures are bound to accumulate. This makes it less and less likely for a future pleasure to outweigh the sum of all immediate pleasures. Thus, like the first circumstance (i), we are unlikely to encounter the second circumstance (ii) when we delay for gratification.

Wrestling Example: How Delayed Gratification Was Not Worth It

To illustrate the second circumstance (ii) of case three (III), let me refer to a personal example that partially led me to write this essay. When I wrestled in high school, my teammates and I grinded through brutal and almost always unenjoyable workouts day in and day out. Even reflecting now, the thought of physically exhausting practices, brutal weight cutting, and time away from home seems like the absolute last of my desires. I was tempted every day in high school to obtain my immediate desires such as eating fast food, playing video games, or almost anything else I knew my classmates were doing instead of going to wrestling practice.

The reason I put myself through all these practices was to obtain a future desire I had. That was to make it to the California State Wrestling Championships. This was the ultimate goal I worked towards. And by the end of my senior year, I achieved that goal. While the pleasure from accomplishing that goal was great, it only was a matter of hours before that feeling of pleasure disappeared, and I was left questioning whether that pleasure outweighed all the pleasure I resisted throughout high school in the process of obtaining this one future desire.

The conclusion I arrived at was that the future pleasure of making it to the state championships could not have outweighed the sum of all immediate pleasures. The truth is, that future pleasure did not feel much different than any other immediate pleasure I ever felt, with exception of lasting slightly longer and being slightly more pleasurable. This is because, like the aforementioned “lower” pleasures, it was intense yet fleeting, and only insignificantly more pleasurable than any “lower” pleasure I felt prior.

Pleasure in Delaying

Now we covered both the first (i) and second (ii) circumstances of case three (III). Whereas it is worth it to delay for gratification in both the first circumstance (i) and second circumstance (ii), they are both highly unlikely to occur. The example from my own experience wrestling further points to this unlikeliness.

It seems we are not left with a lot of likely cases for when it is worth it delay for gratification. Are there any likely cases when it is worth it to delay for gratification? The answer is yes.

There is still one last type of pleasure we have yet to consider. This is not a pleasure in the moment of obtaining a desire though. Like the aforementioned “higher” pleasures, this is a deeper and persistent pleasure in the process of obtaining a desire. This pleasure requires the process of delayed gratification, yet we are never actually delaying for the gratification. The process of delaying is the gratification. This is pleasure in delaying.

Why It Is Worth It to Delay for Gratification with Pleasure in Delaying

Before acknowledging pleasure in delaying, I claimed that it is only worth it to delay for gratification when obtaining a future desire outweighs the sum of obtaining all immediate desires resisted in the process of delaying. But pleasure in delaying changes this.

There are three possibilities to now consider. There is the possibility of not delaying for gratification (a), the possibility of delaying for gratification without pleasure in delaying (b), and the possibility of delaying for gratification with pleasure in delaying (c). Thus, the three possibilities leave us with only immediate pleasure and no opportunity for future pleasure (a), no immediate pleasure but an opportunity for future pleasure (b), or no immediate pleasure but always pleasure in delaying and still an opportunity for future pleasure (c).

Cases one (I), two (II), and three (III) consider the second possibility (b), and we already addressed when it is worth it to delay for gratification within those cases. To determine whether delayed gratification is worth it in the last possibility (c), we then have to compare it to the alternative of not delaying for gratification as seen in the first possibility (a).

However, unlike the previous cases (I-III), there is no need to delay for pleasure in the last possibility (c) because there is pleasure in delaying during the entire process of resisting immediate pleasures. So, instead of comparing pleasure in delaying to the sum of all immediate pleasures, we only need to compare between an immediate pleasure and a pleasure in delaying at any given moment in the process of delaying. If a pleasure in delaying outweighs an immediate pleasure, then it is worth delaying for gratification at that moment. And since we know the depth and persistence of pleasures in delaying in comparison to the simpleness and fleetingness of immediate pleasures, any pleasure in delaying will outweigh any immediate pleasure at any given moment. Therefore, it is always worth it to delay for gratification when there is pleasure in delaying (c).

Of course, it is important to keep in mind that the last possibility © still requires delayed gratification for a future desire, even though there is no need to obtain the future desire to make delaying worth it. A future desire is only necessary for there to be delayed gratification, and delayed gratification is only necessary for there to be any pleasure in delaying. Without a future desire there cannot be delayed gratification, and without delayed gratification there cannot be pleasure in delaying.

Wrestling Example: How Delayed Gratification Was Worth It

Let us refer back to the same wrestling example to elucidate this idea of pleasure in delaying. Although not initially obvious, the process of delayed gratification in wrestling was worth it after all. It was not worth it because of the future pleasure from accomplishing my goal; it was worth it because of pleasure in delaying.

Pleasure in delaying comes from the entire process of wrestling. Pleasure in delaying comes from the process of learning hard work; from the process of mastering discipline; from the process of making lifetime friendships; and from the countless other subtle processes in the overall process of delaying. And again, like the aforementioned “higher” pleasures, these pleasures in delaying persist, even until today. This is because these pleasures are processes that stayed with me, continue to repeat in my life, and will never be outweighed by any immediate pleasure along the way.

The irony is that it didn’t matter if I obtained my future desire of making it to the state championships. Delaying for gratification in wrestling would still have been worth it. Conversely, obtaining my immediate desires resisted in the process of delaying for wrestling (eating McDonald’s, playing Xbox, etc.) would not have made delaying not worth it either.

Pleasure in delaying is why delayed gratification is worth it. If we obtain our future desire at the end of the process of delaying, then the additional future pleasure is only the cherry on top. But that’s not why we order dessert…

The Issue of Foreknowledge in Delayed Gratification

We already looked at a reward being something we want, i.e., an object of desire (3), and how pleasure acts as a measurement to compare the obtainment of desires (2). Although, we are still left with the issue of foreknowledge. We lack the foreknowledge of how pleasurable obtaining a given desire will be.

There are two common methods to resolve this issue. The first (A) is using prior experience. For example, if we already experienced the reward of pleasure in delaying in wrestling, then we can be fairly confident that the same will occur in another martial art. This applies to many endeavors that required us to delay for gratification in the past, whether it be the same endeavor or one similar enough from which we can extrapolate.

The second common method (B) is to listen to other people’s advice, hope they are honest, and believe their prior experience will also apply to us. This is, in part, a leap of faith.

The First Method

There is not much to say about the first method (A), as it is a straightforward reflection of one’s own experience. This reflection mostly serves us as we hope, but occasionally it does not. Although, even when it does not, it is fair to say that we have the highest probability of prediction from our own experience (A) compared to what we hear from others (B).

In fact, there is a very haunting issue that can occur in the second method (B), and an analysis of this issue will lead us into our final definition of a reward within delayed gratification (1), and how it all ties into one of American culture’s biggest lies.

The Second Method

The issue of the second method (B) is precisely that it is advice from another person. For one, they could not have our best interest in mind. Therefore, we may not trust their advice that delayed gratification will be worth it. And even if they do have our best interest in mind, advice from their experience may not apply to us. This can occur if they echo advice that they have heard but do not have any direct experience of themselves. Even if they do have direct experience of their advice, it may still not apply to us simply because we are not them. Any pleasure from delayed gratification for them does not imply that there will be any pleasure from delayed gratification for us.

An example of this is parents advising their children. A parent may strongly advise their child to earn a college degree, despite never earning one themselves. They hear from others that the delayed gratification of earning a college degree is worth it but do have any direct experience of whether it is worth it themselves.

On the other hand, a parent may have earned a college degree themselves and advises their child to earn one too. Earning a college degree may have genuinely been worth it for the parent. Although, they are making a large assumption that earning a college degree will also be worth it for their child. The child may have a completely different set of desires than the parent. If it is not a desire of the child to earn a college degree, then the child will be obtaining another person’s (their parent’s) desire. The pleasure from either obtaining this desire (future pleasure)or the process of obtaining this desire (pleasure in delaying) will then be little to nothing in comparison to the parent. Thus, the delayed gratification of earning a college degree will almost certainly not be worth it for the child.

But the child may still very well end up earning a college degree…

The Third Method

This previous example is very common. Not specifically with regards to college, but advice given to someone that ultimately misleads them from their own desires. The reason this is common is twofold.

For one, when we take the advice of others (B) and follow through with it, we will likely obtain the future desire promised to us. This could be a diploma at the end of college, money at the end of a job, fame at the end of becoming a movie star, or simply the praise from those who originally gave us the advice. If we never actually consider when it is worth it to delay for gratification, then the likelihood of obtaining this future desire is often enough to convince us to delay, even if it is not our own future desire.

The other reason is when we do not have previous experience (A), the only other alternative is a seemingly scarier leap of faith than the second method (B). This is the third method (C); the uncommon method. It is the method of choosing to delay irrespective of others’ advice (B) or previous experience (A), and following one’s desires for their own sake. Again, if we never actually consider when it is worth it to delay for gratification, then many of us will never consider this method, let alone pursue it. We do not see how it could be worth it to do so.

Although, however scary it may seem, there is a reassuring saving grace in the third method (C). The process of delaying in accordance with one’s own desires is a process that will teach us more about ourselves than ever following the advice of others (B). No matter the outcome, the process of the third method (C) guarantees that we will learn about ourselves, our desires, and what it means to delay for gratification in accordance with our desires. We can call this process personal growth. And the pleasure from this personal growth is pleasure in delaying. In turn, delayed gratification will be worth it because the pleasure in delaying guaranteed in the third method (C) will outweigh any immediate pleasure at any given moment in the process of delaying. So, although a seemingly scarier leap of faith than the second method (B), the third method (C) at least assures us that the process of delaying will be worth it, whereas the second method (B) does not.

Reward as a Reinforcer

“But wait,” one may ask, “how does analyzing the issue that can occur in the second method (B) have anything to do with our first definition of reward in delayed gratification (1)?” The first definition (1) states that a reward is any stimulus that reinforces behavior. Applied to delayed gratification, this means resisting an immediate stimulus that reinforces the behavior of not delaying for gratification for the sake of a greater stimulus that reinforces the behavior of delaying for gratification. And the stimuli that reinforce the behavior of delaying for gratification depend entirely on the aforementioned methods used in justifying our decision to delay for gratification. Thus, by examining each method with respect to this definition, we will see how the stimuli that reinforce our behavior to delay for gratification drastically differ. And why this is critical for understanding one of American culture’s biggest lies.

Reinforcing Stimuli in the First and Third Methods

As I said, these stimuli vary depending on which aforementioned method we choose. And for each method, we will only look at when there are stimuli that reinforce us to delay for gratification again.

If we choose the first method (A) and choose to delay for gratification again, then there must be some stimulus from a previous time we delayed for gratification that reinforced this behavior. For example, we are likely to delay for gratification again when we found pleasure in delaying from a similar experience in the past. Pleasure in delaying in this example acts as the stimulus that reinforced us to delay for gratification again.

If we choose the third method (C) and choose to delay for gratification again, then a likely stimulus that reinforced this behavior is the personal growth that comes with pursuing one’s own desires. Of course, the stimulus could also be any other pleasure in delaying from the process of delaying.

In both the first method (A) and the third method (C), the likely stimulus that reinforces us to delay for gratification again will be pleasure in delaying. This is because, as we have already seen, it is the most likely possibility for when delayed gratification is worth it. A future pleasure in the situation of case three (III) could also act as a stimulus that reinforces us to delay for gratification again, albeit generally less likely.

In all other cases, it is not worth it to delay for gratification. That is, of course, when the first method (A) and the third method (C) were chosen to delay for gratification the first time. However, the same does not hold for the second method (B).

Reinforcing Stimulus in the Second Method

If we choose the second method (B) and choose to delay for gratification again, the stimulus that reinforced this behavior may not involve pleasure in delaying at all, nor may it even involve future pleasure of the kind in case three (III). This means that it was not worth it to delay for gratification, yet we are reinforced to delay for gratification again. At first, this seems ridiculous and contradictory. How can delayed gratification not be worth it, yet we are reinforced to do it again?

It only takes a brief moment of introspection or a quick look at others to verify this seeming contradiction occurs all the time. I will be the first to admit endeavoring in an act of delayed gratification without any pleasure in delaying nor future pleasure of the kind in case three (III) but was still reinforced to delay for gratification again. I still sometimes do this. And many others I know do too, either knowingly or not. I hope that my explanation can provide some insight to these people. And maybe even encourage some to reconsider their decisions to delay for gratification or not.

The False Reinforcer

My response to this seeming contradiction is that even if it is not worth it to delay gratification, it can still be perceived as worth it. This is because the second method (B) involves other people, whereas the first method (A) and third method (C) are entirely concerned with oneself.

A large part of completing an act of delayed gratification in the second method (B) is the praise and reassurance from those who advised us to delay for gratification. We also receive similar praise and reassurance from others who didn’t advise us to delay for gratification but also believe it must have been worth it for us to delay. This alone can act as enough of a stimulus to reinforce us to delay for gratification again. The recognition from others that we are following the “right” path or that we are “successful” can be all it takes to convince us of the same thing, even if there is no pleasure in delaying or future pleasure from the act of delayed gratification. And once influenced to believe that an act of delayed gratification is worth it, despite a lack of any pleasure, we are reinforced to delay for gratification again.

Of course, these are usually well-intentioned people trying to give well-intentioned support. The sad truth is that although well-intentioned, a potential consequence of their support is the perversion of our feelings from the act of delayed gratification. With repeated exposure to this stimulus and repeated behavior of delayed gratification over time, we are bound to start seeing our desires unclearly. We lose the clarity of distinguishing between our desires and the desires of those who support and influence us. We begin to question our desires. Our mind fills with doubt. And it is exactly this doubt that implies another’s desire has perverted our own.

As kids, we hardly doubt our desires. But that’s just because we hadn’t given the world enough time to pervert our desires yet…

One of American Culture’s Biggest Lies

When I was in school, we were taught that delayed gratification was a virtue to learn and cultivate in one’s life. We were taught that those who resist immediate pleasures will be thankful for the eventual future pleasures. The ones who studied hard and delayed gratification will go to the best colleges, get the best jobs, make the most money, and be the most “successful”. This is not only a perspective taught in school; this is also how the majority of American culture views success.

Accordingly, if a person has a degree from a well-known college, a high-paying job, and accumulates a variety of symbols of wealth (e.g., nice car, large home, etc.), then they must be successful. This implies that success is measured by obtaining a pre-established set of future desires that require delaying for gratification.

It is not as common to hear success as someone who pursues their own desires after high school instead of earning a college degree but fails to obtain them. But why not? This person is likely to find pleasure in delaying through the process of obtaining their own future desires, despite not actually obtaining them. Should they have delayed gratification to obtain the pre-established cultural set of future desires instead? After all, many people of our culture would deem them as “successful”, so it would make all that delaying worth it, right? Well, those who believe this American cultural lie may surely think so…

Why the Lie?

Success in American culture means we must delay for gratification to obtain a certain set of pre-established future desires. This is one of American culture’s biggest lies. And many of us raised in this culture believe this lie. It can act as a source of guidance when deciding if it is worth it to delay for gratification. In short, we choose the second method (B) and trust the advice of American culture and the many Americans who propagate the same advice. We decide it is worth it to delay again and again throughout life, waiting for the day we become “successful”; the day when all our delaying will finally be worth it. But then that day never comes.

This begs the question: why the lie? In no way does this lie imply individual happiness. But what it does imply is the continuation and strength of the American economy and culture. If everyone were to see this lie for what it is and abandon belief in it, our economy may not hold up. The virtues that constitute American culture might crumble. A cultural lie of this kind can only continue propagating if enough people believe in it. It is, after all, one of American culture’s biggest lies for a reason.

But to what extent is an individual to sacrifice their desires, and even their happiness, for the sake of a culture or economy? I would argue almost never, but that is another essay altogether. Although, this choice may not need to be binary. As we have already seen, we can delay for gratification in accordance with our own desires (C), experience pleasure in delaying (c), and be reinforced to delay again (1) — all while being successful. But then again, that depends on what you believe success really means.

What is Success?

“The reason most people fail is because they give up what they want most for what they want now.”[v] This was an apt quote to start our discussion, and it is relevant again now from a new light. But what does it mean to fail? Does it mean not obtaining a certain set of pre-established future desires that American culture constitutes as success? Or does it mean not delaying for gratification in accordance with our own desires?

Success is not an objective measure. It is not defined by any set of pre-established future desires we must obtain. It is not defined by obtaining any desires at all. And it is not something I can define for everyone.

Only the process of delaying for gratification can define it for you.

Afterward

This essay is not meant to convince anyone. I am not in defense of “the truth”. How can an essay of this sort even capture “the truth” anyway? This is an ethical essay. As such, not everything in it will apply to everyone at every point in time. And that’s fine.

The goal of this essay is to explain my thought process when deciding whether it is worth it to delay for gratification. My hope is that it rings true to others who share similar experiences and ways of thinking as me. For some, this way of thinking may apply only in a handful of situations at some points in time. And for even less, this way of thinking might be as applicable and as truthful as it is to me.

Regardless, I hope everyone can get something out of this essay, whether that is a new perspective they can employ positively in their own life or simply some entertaining food for thought. As long as I made myself and my thought process understood, then I have achieved my goal.

Points of Contention

This essay is not without its faults. And although I am not yet aware of them all, there are some I am aware of and would like to address now.

For one, my analysis of pleasure can be seen as arbitrary and reductionist. It is arbitrary because one person may place one pleasure at a higher level while another person places that same pleasure at a lower level. However, my point is that people do differentiate pleasures. And surely people must also believe some higher pleasures can never be surpassed by any amount of a lower pleasure. I consider pleasures in delaying as one of these higher pleasures and immediate pleasures as one of these lower pleasures, respectively, but it is certainly a point of contention.

My analysis of pleasure can also be seen as reductionist because I completely neglect the aspect of pain. By pain, I mean the general antithesis of pleasure. Of course, in this sense, pain plays a role in whether delaying for gratification is worth it just like pleasure does. We can imagine how we could subtract pain from pleasure to find a net difference between the two and use this to decide whether it is worth it to delay for gratification. This is valid, and it would be more comprehensive of me to include the idea of pain.

Points of Misunderstanding

In anticipation of potential misunderstandings, I also want to address points that may be unclear to the reader.

One misunderstanding may concern the use of “desire”. This essay discusses the difference between what we want (i.e., object of our desire) versus what others tell us we should want (i.e., object of another’s desire). This does not mean we are born with a soul or predetermined purpose that dictates our desires. Our desires can be influenced from external sources, including other people. But they are still our desires. However, our desires can also be simultaneously distorted by external sources.

To tease apart this subtle difference between influence and distortion, let’s look at a hypothetical example. Let’s assume I have the desire to become a fisherman. This does not imply I have a soul or innate purpose predetermining my desire to be a fisherman. My desire might have developed from fishing with my grandfather as a kid. Even though my grandfather influenced my desire to become a fisherman, it is still my desire, not my grandfather’s.

Now imagine my mother disapproves of this desire. She thinks I should become a doctor. She advises me on all the positive aspects of becoming a doctor instead of a fisherman (wealth, respect, etc.) Despite her efforts, I still do not have the desire to become a doctor. But now I question my desire to become a fisherman. I consider her advice and doubt whether I want to become a fisherman after all. This is not because I want to become a doctor and no longer want to become a fisherman. My doubt simply arises as a result of my desire being distorted by my mother’s desire for me. This is the difference between our desires being influenced by others and distorted by others. The latter is what this essay addresses, not the former.

Another potential misunderstanding is the specific reference to American culture. When I first wrote this essay, every instance of “American culture” was initially “our culture”. That is not to say American cultural ideas do not apply to other cultures too. I’m positive many cultures propagate the same ideas as the USA. Although to be fair to readers and criticize only my own culture, I chose to exclusively reference American culture.

Final Remarks

Like all philosophical inquiries, I realize my reasoning does not make as much sense as I thought it would when I began this essay. The more I try to explain the truth behind my reasoning, the more it evades me. Like a mirage, truth always appears clearer from far away. As soon as we try to examine it up close, however, the perpetual chase begins.

This essay is about decision-making with respect to delayed gratification. We all face decisions to delay for gratification or not. Whether we will ever arrive at the truth behind decision-making with respect to delayed gratification is uncertain. The more we reflect on our decisions, however, the better equipped we are at making decisions in the future. Thus, it is worth thinking about.

I believe this is the practical goal of all ethical philosophy. Not to arrive at the truth, but to reflect on our own life so we can improve upon it. This process of reflection is enough to make ethical philosophy worth it. I did not come to this realization until I wrote this essay.

Now I understand this realization is exactly the truth I was trying to convey the whole time.

Subscribe for weekly newsletters via email or follow me on Medium.

Notes

[i] Conti, Regina. “delay of gratification”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 19 Mar. 2019, https://www.britannica.com/science/delay-of-gratification. Accessed 18 January 2022.

[ii] “Reward.” APA Dictionary of Psychology, https://dictionary.apa.org/reward. Accessed 18 Jan. 2022.

[iii] Berridge, Kent C, and Morten L Kringelbach. “Affective neuroscience of pleasure: reward in humans and animals.” Psychopharmacology vol. 199,3 (2008): 457–80. doi:10.1007/s00213–008–1099–6

[iv] Mischel, Walter and Ebbe B. Ebbesen. “Attention in delay of gratification.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16 (1970): 329–337.

[v] Echo, Emmanuel. Facebook, uploaded by theemmanuelecho, 25 July 2021, https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=539634514149456&id=100052270652962&_rdr.

[vi] Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. London, Parker, son, and Bourn, 1863. Web. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <lccn.loc.gov/11015966>.

[vii] Mischel, W et al. “Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification.” Journal of personality and social psychology vol. 21,2 (1972): 204–18. doi:10.1037/h0032198

[viii] Mischel, Walter, et al. “Delay of gratification in children.” Science, vol. 244, no. 4907, 26 May 1989, pp. 933+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A7658375/AONE?u=googlescholar&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=50816d6c. Accessed 18 Jan. 2022.

[ix] Ayduk, Ozlem et al. “Regulating the interpersonal self: strategic self-regulation for coping with rejection sensitivity.” Journal of personality and social psychology 79 5 (2000): 776–92.

Originally published at https://kylecreech.com on March 4, 2022.