As a follow-up to the gut thinking discussion, @MiscBytes passed on a link to a relevant study. It turns out that Armed With Information, People Make Poor Choices (and despite the date, I don’t think it was an April Fools’ joke).

How do you choose between a smaller reward now and a bigger reward later? You might expect that people who think with their gut would foolishly choose short term satisfaction, while people who think with their brain would wisely do what’s better in the long run. But the study found that people who were given complete information about their options were more likely to take the quick reward.

One of the researchers said “To fully appreciate a long-term option, you have to choose it repeatedly and begin to feel the benefits.” In other words, you have to train your gut, because your head isn’t making the decision, even when you give it all the information it needs.

The study involved racking up points in a computer program, with a cash incentive for good performance. Subjects were repeatedly given two options. One option gave more points now, while the other gave the possibility of more points later. The subjects who were given full and accurate information were twice as likely to take the quick payoff as those who were given incomplete or false information about what they were giving up.

(I had a couple of problems with the article. One, it was really vague about the long term option. What were the odds of it paying off (it appeared to not be guaranteed), and how much would it pay off (presumably more points than you gave up in the short term, but it doesn’t say)? But I’m assuming it was apparent to the subjects that the long term option was logically the better choice. Two, it leaves its title hanging – it doesn’t offer any explanation as to why having more information causes you to make the wrong choice.)

This reminded me of the marshmallow test. In this study, marshmallows were placed in front of hungry four year olds. They were told they could eat one marshmallow now, or they could have two if they waited a few minutes. 14 years later, the ones who were able to hold out for two marshmallows were more socially competent, optimistic, assertive, dependable, trustworthy, and scored 210 points higher on the SAT.

However, in the marshmallow test (and maybe the computer program test too), the long term choice is clearly better. Your second marshmallow is guaranteed, and coming in just a few minutes. But is the long term winner always the better choice?

Here’s an example from the “armed with information” article: “In a real-life scenario, a student who stayed home to study and then learned he had missed a fun party would be less likely to study next time in a similar situation – even if that option provides more long-term benefits.”

OK, but is that a bad thing? Are they supposed to skip all parties so they can spend all of their time studying? Once you’ve studied enough, how much benefit is there in studying a little more, compared to going to a party?

In The 4-Hour Workweek, Tim Ferriss says “This book is not about saving and will not recommend you abandon your daily glass of red wine for a million dollars 50 years from now. I’d rather have the wine.” That’s a reasonable choice. Not necessarily the one everyone should make, but a reasonable one.

It’s important to consider the cost of instant gratification. But it’s also important to consider the cost of waiting. How much is the wine worth to you?

• Gut Vs. Brain: The Body’s Best Decision-Making Organ