I see, by “this” you meant using randomization in general, but getting buy-in?
I agree. And, in general, I don’t think it makes sense to use randomization when there are other good options. If both kids agreed to do (2) I’d help them with it and enforce the outcome, but otherwise it would be (1).
I see, by “this” you meant using randomization in general, but getting buy-in?
Yes.
If both kids agreed to do (2) I’d help them with it and enforce the outcome, but otherwise it would be (1).
...which in the case of two kids, of of which minds uncertainty more than the other, penalizes the child who dislikes uncertainty. “Do X or I won’t allow a schedule”[1] becomes a valid threat.
which in the case of two kids, of of which minds uncertainty more than the other, penalizes the child who dislikes uncertainty. “Do X or I won’t allow a schedule” becomes a valid threat.
Sorry, that’s not what I’m saying. For something that is a good fit for a schedule, like a chore rotation, a schedule would be the default. Only if both kids wanted randomization would we do that. Which means that if one kid didn’t like randomization, we wouldn’t.
Ah, I thought you meant “if both kids agreed to a schedule you would, otherwise it would be randomization”. Looking back, I missed that you meant the other way around.
Be aware that this inherently penalizes children who dislike uncertainty.
How so?
Take two cases:
You have a schedule for who does chore X, balanced 50⁄50.
You flip a coin for who does chore X, every time.
For someone who doesn’t mind uncertainty, these are effectively equivalent. For someone who does mind uncertainty, 2 is worse than 1, often far worse.
I see, by “this” you meant using randomization in general, but getting buy-in?
I agree. And, in general, I don’t think it makes sense to use randomization when there are other good options. If both kids agreed to do (2) I’d help them with it and enforce the outcome, but otherwise it would be (1).
Yes.
...which in the case of two kids, of of which minds uncertainty more than the other, penalizes the child who dislikes uncertainty. “Do X or I won’t allow a schedule”[1] becomes a valid threat.
Or rather, subtler versions thereof.
Sorry, that’s not what I’m saying. For something that is a good fit for a schedule, like a chore rotation, a schedule would be the default. Only if both kids wanted randomization would we do that. Which means that if one kid didn’t like randomization, we wouldn’t.
Ah, I thought you meant “if both kids agreed to a schedule you would, otherwise it would be randomization”. Looking back, I missed that you meant the other way around.
They’ll get the dispreferred outcome more frequently since their sibling will agree.