If the child’s preference is strong, consider a compromise.
If you mean strong in comparison with your own preference that they don’t do that, I don’t think that would work. It would just incentivize the child to always have very strong preferences. To want that they want right now very strongly. The child would become a little utility monster.
Theoretically it might work if you mean “strong compared to the child’s other preferences”. Then you might tell the child, “if you eat this icecream, your belly will hurt later”. But children do much more time discounting than adults, so that’s hard too.
If you mean strong in comparison with your own preference that they don’t do that, I don’t think that would work. It would just incentivize the child to always have very strong preferences.
I think it should mean “If your estimate of the child’s preference is strong, consider a compromise”.
Sure, but how do you define or measure an estimate of the child’s preference strength, when the child is incentivized to represent all preference as maximally strong?
If you mean strong in comparison with your own preference that they don’t do that, I don’t think that would work. It would just incentivize the child to always have very strong preferences. To want that they want right now very strongly. The child would become a little utility monster.
Theoretically it might work if you mean “strong compared to the child’s other preferences”. Then you might tell the child, “if you eat this icecream, your belly will hurt later”. But children do much more time discounting than adults, so that’s hard too.
I think it should mean “If your estimate of the child’s preference is strong, consider a compromise”.
Sure, but how do you define or measure an estimate of the child’s preference strength, when the child is incentivized to represent all preference as maximally strong?
Experience :-)