At Academy M, we have discovered an inherited linked between a person's hyper-millennialism and instant-gratification. Using the Millennial Curve Evaluation, we have not only been able to successfully to calculate the different levels of a person's millennial behavior, but using a simple reverse mathematical formula we have also discovered how to calculate a person's propensity toward instant gratification. Using a process we call Peeling, we can determine what we call Instant Gratification Percentage (or IGP for short). IGP is a the estimated percentage of how often a person will choose instant gratification over delayed gratification. To demonstrate how this approach works in helping to increase between productivity, engagement and communication between peers and people from different generations and cultural backgrounds, we have complied the same examples from the home page below.
To calculate a person's IGP using the Millennial Curve Evaluation, use the following formula:
TEP ÷ TPA = IGP
(Total Experience Score / Total Points Available = Instant Gratification Percentage )
Using the above formula, anyone who takes the Millennial Curve can calculate their IGP and discover how prone their are to making decisions based on instant gratification.
Overall, instant gratification by itself is not a problem. It only becomes a liability when it in-appropriately becomes the default guide on how majority of decisions are made in a persons life. Those who struggle with controlling their impulses for instant gratification also may suffer from deeply developed issues with trust. According research reported by Psychology Today;
"A lifetime of learning not to trust others to deliver what they promise in the future (e.g., growing up with a sense of total helplessness) may play a role in one’s resistance to delaying gratification. Similarly, the short duration and uncertainty of life influence our time preference. Poor health especially is an indicator of mortality, and therefore increases one’s uncertainty about whether a future reward will be received."
Academy M believes he positive affects associated with practicing delayed gratification could be held in helping Millennials to improve their fluid intelligence. According recent studies, higher intelligence is associated with a more future-focused tendency. Future planning involves the executive brain, which is linked to intelligence through the function of the prefrontal cortex. Children with higher intelligence tend to be better at shifting attention away from the affective properties of rewards. This explains why individuals with lower intelligence may be more prone to financial hardship, and tend to have lower levels of financial asset accumulation.
In this example, you can see that the Delta (Lloyd Ford) IGP is significantly than the Centennial (Imran Nanwalla). If these two are paired and have to collaborate on an important project, and neither is able to adapt to the other's natural impulses toward instant gratification, then its almost an guarantee probability that they will be able to successfully complete the project on time and according to spec. This pair is doomed to result in a power struggles over approach, metrics, timelines, and ultimately delivered results.
In this example, both people are centennials, and you can see from the graph, their IGP's and DGP's (Delayed Gratification Percentages) are virtually identical. If these two were paired together to work on a project or just for mentorship, the pairing would likely produce great results for both parties involved. Based on their IGP results, their ideals on approach, metrics, time allocation, deadlines and results would be in total alignment with one another.
In this example, we can the small but large disparity between the Centennial (Dahru Garner) and the Alpha (Glen Wootenge) their instant gratification percentages. Dahru is pre-dominately lead by delayed gratification, while Glen is also completely balanced between his impulses toward instant gratification and delayed gratification. If paired, its highly possible for two able to successfully complete a project working side by side. The only obstacles this pair would face be agreeing on consistent metrics and approaches, since Dahru is more patient than Glen.
In this example, we see the Alpha (Fred Rogers) and the Beta (Ryan Wilson) collide their percentages for instant and delayed gratification. Fred, is almost completely balanced in how he makes decisions. Using an even mix of both instant and delayed gratification impulses to make decisions. Ryan, is completely divergent from Fred in delayed gratification (25%) and almost totally reliant on instant gratification as his default guide on making decisions. If these two were paired on project, the chances of it success are extremely low, but not impossible. If Fred can adapt to fast pace and less calculated approached most likely to be exhibited by Ryan, then the two could successfully collaborate together.