Why does Monopoly destroy families?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Why does Monopoly destroy families?
Position1 of 5›: Monopoly brings out latent rivalries
Argument1 of 2›: Favourite child syndrome

Not all children are born equal, even when they are born into the same family. Monopoly provides the perfect opportunity for those deep-seated sibling rivalries to rise to the surface.

The argument

As we grow up, we realize the many lies we were told as children. Santa isn’t real; sex isn’t just a special handshake; and whether they want to admit it or not, your parents do have a favorite child. Even if these preferences are unconscious, the subtle sibling hierarchy they create manifests itself in various ways, from the seating arrangement at the dinner table to which sibling Mom and Dad help out (or gang up) on during game night. The latter example of favoritism can be seen especially easily in drawn-out, competition-driven games like Monopoly. When children pick up on their parents’ subtle preferences, ensuing feelings of jealousy, resentment, and sadness can spark fights. In many ways, siblings are already in constant competition for their parents’ attention and affection. Games like Monopoly only worsen this struggle by having the family externalize their hidden emotions onto a game board. Thus, the fights that characterize Monopoly games often run deeper than they first appear. Next time you find yourself in a screaming match over the use of the “Get Out of Jail Free” card, ask yourself this: are we really fighting about the rules, or is it some familial conflict more significant than that?

Premises

[P1]Parents tend to have a favourite child, and even unconscious preferences create a subtle sibling hierarchy. [P2] Drawn-out competitive games like Monopoly externalise that favouritism, as parents help or gang up on certain siblings. [P3] Children picking up on these preferences feel jealousy and resentment that spark fights running deeper than the game's rules. [C] Therefore, because Monopoly triggers favourite-child syndrome, it brings out latent family rivalries.

Counter-arguments

Not all parents have a favorite child, and likewise, many siblings have healthy, non-competitive relationships.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise is offered as something everyone secretly knows rather than as a finding. Research on differential parental treatment does report that unequal treatment is common and that perceiving oneself as the less favoured child is associated with worse sibling relations, but the universal claim goes well beyond that, and the counter's observation that many families are not like this is left unanswered. [Rejecting P2] Nothing in the premise is specific to Monopoly. If competitive games externalise favouritism, the same would hold of any game, sport or school prize, so the mechanism cannot explain why this game in particular is singled out. The features usually offered for that — its length, the elimination of players who then sit and watch, and the wide currency of house rules that alter the odds mid-game — appear nowhere in the argument. [Rejecting P3] The final step is unfalsifiable as posed. Any quarrel is read as evidence of a deeper family conflict, and a game that passes peacefully can be read as suppression, so no observation could tell against the claim. Without some way of distinguishing a dispute about the rules from a proxy war, the premise cannot be tested.