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.
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.