Let's look at a case first:
Two children, one for three dollars, one for one dollar, and four dollars in the hands of the parents.
The parents thought about being fair, so they gave the first child one piece and the second child three pieces.
Although the last two children are as much.
But in the eyes of the child, fairness should be two pieces for each child.
If it were you, what would you do?
Some said she favored the practice of giving two pieces per child. Because as a child born in a multi-child family, her parents once thought she already had three pieces in her hand, so they only gave her one, and she felt that she had been treated unfairly for a long time.
Some say that if parents are always absolutely fair in form, then it is unfair to the most vulnerable child. She is more in favor of "robbing the rich and helping the poor": the first child gives one piece, the second child gives three pieces, and the last two children are as many as four.
Some people say that there is no need to be absolutely fair in form, if the parents give something, a child does not need it, or have to give, or depends on whether the child needs it.
Some say that if parents give each child enough love from the birth of each child, will these children really mind formal fairness?
Parents should first put on a fair posture
In my opinion, if it comes to the allocation of resources by parents to their children, parents must at least first pose as "I am willing to distribute equally to all children".
I think this gesture is very important, first make this gesture clear, and then the subsequent on-demand allocation can be accepted.
After the gesture is made, if some children say: Actually, I don't mind this thing, I don't need so much.
"Well, ok, whether it's your business or not, whether to give or not to give is my business." You can not, it is your generosity your generosity your wind bone. But I can guarantee that I will give you as long as you want, and the amount left for you will not be less than the amount left for others. ”
"If you're sure you don't want it, do you want something else?" I can exchange it for something else of equal value." ”
"If you still don't want it, then do you mind giving it to the other sisters and brothers?" Maybe someone needs your share. Of course, it depends on you, whether you are willing to give, lend, replace, or not. You two can discuss it yourself first, and if you two need my advice, I will be happy to give you advice. ”
"If you don't mind this for a long time, ok then I know, and I will give your share to other children, thank you for your virtue." At the same time, you have the right to suspend at any time, suppose that one day in the future, I want to allocate a certain resource, you are suddenly interested, then you must tell me. If you don't say it, I'll just give it directly to the other children as is customary. If you tell me, I'll leave you a copy. ”
A fair gesture allows every child to believe in the love of their parents in their hearts
In my opinion, I think the above treatment is very good. Whether the child needs it or not, I feel that parents need to make a "I am willing to distribute equally to all children" gesture in advance, which is very important.
This gesture can reassure every child that parents love each of us as much and that parents love us less.
After this gesture is made clear, it will be distributed according to the situation according to the situation, which is easy to say.
Indeed, I also believe that when a child is convinced that he or she is fully loved by his parents, he can be less calculated and fair, less concerned about whether his parents have achieved equal distribution every time. In this way, parents can also allocate according to their needs, resources can be optimally allocated, and the needs of different children have been optimally met.
But if the parents have never made that gesture from the beginning; if the parents have felt from the beginning, "I must allocate according to my needs, a certain child just needs more, I want to give more, a child just doesn't need so much, I don't have to give him so much." So how can the child who often gets less be sure that the parents are not biased, and how can they be sure that the parents do not give less love to themselves than to others?
"Even if I don't need it materially, I need it psychologically (being treated fairly is a need)." Otherwise I would suspect that my parents are biased and suspect that they love other children more. After all, my parents never made me believe that they loved me as much as I loved other children. ”
"Only when I am convinced that I am fully loved by my parents will I not need this form of fairness from material to psychological, and I may really voluntarily give up and let my parents leave their limited resources to children who need them more." 」
"But, unless I volunteer, I can't. Because it is my right to get a fair distribution of resources. If I never told my parents that I voluntarily waived this right, why did my parents take it upon themselves to deprive me of this right without questioning me? ”
Write to the end:
Some readers say that they don't have to do a fair job every time they are assigned, this time to A more, next time to B more, next time to C more, a few children take turns, isn't it also very good?
I think it is also true that this way of dealing with it is actually a variation of formal fairness, which is formal fairness in a cycle.
Formal equity within the cycle is a risk. If the child is young and short-sighted, he can't actually see and can't figure it out, and in this cycle, he gets no less than others. Children can only see the immediate, the present, the single, and get less than others, and they will immediately feel that they have been treated unfairly.
If it is a big child, he can already understand, then the problem is not big.
Formal fairness within the cycle is okay. It's not fair to form for too long, and I don't think it's okay. Unless the child who gets the least is convinced that he is fully loved by his parents, that his parents give himself no less love than he gives to others.