A reader named D.J. writes in with a problem that requires some sensitive game theory, trickier than the roommate dilemma. Note that he is wise enough to flatter you as “intelligent and thoughtful,” so do your best to live up to his bias.
I’m from a family of six and a few years ago my mom passed away. My dad now wants to downsize from a large house and get rid of much of the furniture and other goods in the house before moving. He’d like us kids to work out amongst ourselves as much as possible who gets what items. There are some nice antiques, but we’re not talking about any original Monets or anything like that — mostly furniture and artwork that my folks accumulated over the years at auctions, along with other sentimental items and a large amount of stuff that will probably wind up being sold or donated.
I love my siblings and want to continue to love them after this process is over. Perhaps your intelligent and thoughtful followers can suggest the most equitable way to distribute the goods in the house, assuming there’s a thorough inventory of what’s available for distribution.
I too come from a large family but we had the good fortune to have no fortune left behind to divvy up. What did happen, however, in the wake of our second parent’s death, was that a large personality vacuum arose. All the relationships that used to orbit around our mother were no longer able to do so, and inter-sibling relationships changed a lot. Not always for the worse, but a lot of change. Maybe dealing with that will be a bleg for another day. In the meantime, please give your best strategic advice to D.J.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
When my grandfather died, my parents/aunts & uncles/cousins/siblings and we all had post-its. We put our name on something we wanted – everyone was allowed to put theirs on what they wanted whether or not it had someone’s name on it already or not. If more than one of us wanted something, we negotiated about that. No fights ensued. Most things that had many post-its were things that had emotional attachment for us, rather than huge value and so it was usually given to someone who could articulate best why it was so meaningful to them. Worked for us.
It’s as simple as Yankee Swap!
Look into the Envy-Free Fair Division work by Steven Brams and Alan Taylor. The classic fair division problem is “how to cut a cake so everyone feels unenvious of the results?” This problem was easy for a two person problem (one person cuts, the other person selects the first slice) but becomes difficult in the case of multiple players and multiple cakes.
Brams and Taylor actually have a system for giving a set of individuals looking to divide a set of goods and to do so in an envy free and equitable way. I apologize that I can’t remember the specifics but in involves all parties getting an equal endowment of points (say 100) which they have to assign to various goods (e.g. 10 for the TV, 1 for the cat…) and once that is done, then you can do this order and switch procedure that, if all the players are honest about their allocations, they should get their slice of the “cake” that cannot be improved (as it would result in the loss of a higher valued good).
Read Neal Stephenson’s Cryptonomicon, which includes a passage describing a method wherein each family member plots each heirloom on a graph of desirability, followed by normalizing everyone’s curve.
There were 5 siblings remaining after my mom’s death. We published an inventory of available items that could be reviewed ahead of time. We met and drew lots to establish a selecting order then took turns picking the things we most wanted. We went one at a time and picked things. There were occasional groans as a favored item was chosen, but many more shared stories were generated. We shared pizza and memories of mom afterward. It was a loving and fair way to distribute her earthly goods.
I see three possible options:
1. Hold an auction amongst yourselves. However, this favours siblings with lots of money and creates a competitive atmosphere.
2. Sell all the items and divide the cash evenly. This works if no one actually wants the items and they don’t have sentimental value; if you can all agree to it, it’ll probably be the most hassle-free option.
3. Hold a draft, like they do in sports. Draw names out of a hat to see who picks first. Then each take turns picking an item. You could keep the same order throughout, or reverse the order in alternative rounds, so that the person who got the last pick in the first round gets first pick in the second round. Family members could trade draft picks amongst themselves if there’s a particular item someone wants. This would work if there are a large number of items with comparable values; it would suck if there is one or two items that everyone wants.
At Christmas we wrap up a load of presents. We then get two packs of cards. One pack is dealt among the guests. The cards from the other pack are turned over. When you have a match you get to pick a gift which you unwrap and show everybody. After a while all the gifts are distrubuted (you need to have more cards than gifts) but the guests have cards remaining in their hands. From this point on, when one of your cards comes up, you get to pick a gift from someone else. The best gifts will move from guest to guest several times. If you have lots of gifts you can play several times.
One good way to start is to use passive aggressiveness in a positive way to avoid a large argument over all items. You could place a box or hat in front of desired items in the house. Your family members could individually (by themselves and with no spectators) place their name on a piece of paper and place it in the item’s box. If only one person tries to claim a particular item, that person can walk away with the item.
Next, this can also allow items which have claims from only 2-3 people to be arbitrated on a smaller scale, instead of the entire group fighting about it and using an item that few are interested in to leverage their taking of something more important to them. It can also possibly hedge out some, definitely not all, of feigning interest in one item by an individual and then conceding it to use to their advantage when negotiating for something that is more important to them.
One additional possibility would be to have a limited number of slips per person, and maybe have them numbered by importance to them. This way, when they go through the “family auction” on their own, they will be thoughtful and deliberate as to what is more and most important to them.
This is just an idea that I amsure will have some downfalls to it that I have not thought of yet, which hopefully will be pointed out through other comments. But it may work for some groups and not others, depending on the family climate. By trying this experiment, however, you can elminate the discussion over items that people are genuinely not interested in and really focus in on the ones that matter. I guess if someone gains a lot of the less popular items, though, it could be a source of friction. Hope something here can help!