FREE TAPATALK APP

Rrose Selavy · 29th January 2011, 09:29 AM

Well having just come across this (I know it's the Daily Mail) A psychologist plugs their new book on supposed birth order on personality.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ules-life.html

The above reads like a load of vague Barnum statements, so I'm sceptical and so is the Wiki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_order

Tried searching here on the forum and the search is useless for "birth order" , surprised if it hasn't been covered in a thread.
Anyway any thoughts on the issue, other than anecdotes like "yeah that's me I'm a typical ~~Aries~~/ youngest child " ?

EDIT: Sorry meant to post this in Skepticism , so please go there , unless the mods decide otherwise. I'll ask them to delete this dup.

Rrose Selavy · 29th January 2011, 09:30 AM

Well having just come across this (I know it's the Daily Mail) A "pop" psychologist plugs their new book on supposed birth order influence on personality.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351567/First-born-Piggy-middle-Or-baby-How-place-family-rules-life.html

I'm sceptical, the above reads like a load of vague Barnum statements, and so is the Wiki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_order

Tried searching here on the forum and the search is useless for "birth order" , surprised if it hasn't been covered in a thread.
Anyway any thoughts on the issue?, other than anecdotes like "yeah that's me I'm a typical ~~Aries~~/ youngest child " ?

bokonon · 29th January 2011, 09:49 AM

There are epigenetic effects which depend on birth order, usually to the detriment of those born later, and certainly the social environment into which younger children are born is different than the social environment into which older children are born. I doubt that any of this translates to statistically valid personality profiles.

Edit: I don't read Skepticism, so I guess that's all I'll have to say.

I Ratant · 29th January 2011, 10:04 AM

Middle child here, more tolerant than the ends.

AnnoyingPony · 29th January 2011, 11:05 AM

First child here, and I'm a borderline hermit.

casebro · 29th January 2011, 11:09 AM

Wasn't 'birth order' mentioned in one of the homosexuality threads? And wasn't it discredited?

Professor Yaffle · 29th January 2011, 11:10 AM

An article in Scientific American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...by-birth-order

Fnord · 29th January 2011, 11:16 AM

I pulled these out of the Scientific American article:

Quote:

2007 Norwegian epidemiologists Petter Kristensen and Tor Bjerkedal published work showing a small but reliable negative correlation between IQ and birth order: the more older siblings one has, the lower one’s IQ.

Quote:

... the evidence seems to be shifting back in favor of our common intuition that our position in our family somehow affects who we become. The details, however, remain vague.

... and ...

Quote:

It’s fine for scientists to say “more study is needed,” but we must find love, gain self-knowledge and parent children now.

The bottom line?

Actual cause-and-effect of birth order versus personality is not yet - or likely will never be - experimentally confirmed, although there seems to be a greater correlation between wealth, family size and relative success of offspring.

I Ratant · 29th January 2011, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

Middle child here, more tolerant than the ends.

.
And somewhat of a recluse.

Beerina · 29th January 2011, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

I pulled these out of the Scientific American article:

... and ...

The bottom line?

Actual cause-and-effect of birth order versus personality is not yet - or likely will never be - experimentally confirmed, although there seems to be a greater correlation between wealth, family size and relative success of offspring.

The more kids, the stupider the average kid.
The higher in the birth order, the smarter.

This maxxes out at the oldest in a 2 child family with an age delta of 2 years 8 months. I rolled well. 2y8m26d

23_Tauri · 29th January 2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

2007 Norwegian epidemiologists Petter Kristensen and Tor Bjerkedal published work showing a small but reliable negative correlation between IQ and birth order: the more older siblings one has, the lower one’s IQ.

Me number six.

I Ratant · 29th January 2011, 03:19 PM

One of my lady friends was well done the birth order in her family... 10th or so, and quite intelligent, personable, capable, and bipolar.

lionking · 29th January 2011, 03:36 PM

Well, we have five middle children, and they are all as different as chalk and cheese. And our seventh is showing signs of being the brightest of them all, closely followed by our sixth.

The model doesn't fit us.

RayG · 29th January 2011, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

The more kids, the stupider the average kid.
The higher in the birth order, the smarter.

Really? The youngest of our 11 children scored very high in reading comprehension/level when she started grade 4 at her new school. Highest in her class. She was reading at a grade 8 level and quite impressed her teacher.

Pretty smart kid, and we've treated her no differently than any of the other children in the family.

RayG

lionking · 29th January 2011, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

Really? The youngest of our 11 children scored very high in reading comprehension/level when she started grade 4 at her new school. Highest in her class. She was reading at a grade 8 level and quite impressed her teacher.

Pretty smart kid, and we've treated her no differently than any of the other children in the family.

RayG

Serious? You have 11 kids? I thought I was stupid.

RayG · 29th January 2011, 07:09 PM

Yup, all mine, no blended family, no adoptions. Six girls, five boys.

Still have nine of them living with me, so my grocery bill is enormous.

RayG

lionking · 29th January 2011, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

Yup, all mine, no blended family, no adoptions. Six girls, five boys.

Still have nine of them living with me, so my grocery bill is enormous.

RayG

Four girls, three boys for us, but only three left at home.

I've never had to worry about where my paycheck went.

RayG · 29th January 2011, 07:20 PM

HA!!! I can soooooo relate to what you're saying.

I spend so much time at the grocery store, the cashiers are starting to call me by my first name.

RayG

Modified · 29th January 2011, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

Well, we have five middle children, and they are all as different as chalk and cheese. And our seventh is showing signs of being the brightest of them all, closely followed by our sixth.

The model doesn't fit us.

Well, how strong is the correlation supposed to be? Not all that strong, I would guess.

LTC8K6 · 29th January 2011, 09:33 PM

I'm number 7 and last and I am definitely not the one with the lowest IQ...

I Ratant · 30th January 2011, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by RayG

Yup, all mine, no blended family, no adoptions. Six girls, five boys.

Still have nine of them living with me, so my grocery bill is enormous.

RayG

.
At least you have a stay-at-home hobby.

23_Tauri · 30th January 2011, 10:20 AM

Logic would suggest to me that having older siblings was good for the developing brain. All those brothers and sisters with whom to play games, do homework and generally create a lively, stimulating environment. But the pop psychologists seem to be saying my hunch is wrong.

ria_rokz · 30th January 2011, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Logic would suggest to me that having older siblings was good for the developing brain. All those brothers and sisters with whom to play games, do homework and generally create a lively, stimulating environment. But the pop psychologists seem to be saying my hunch is wrong.

I remember learning in a psych course I took that the studies find the opposite; the oldest child gets the most attention from adults, and generally has a higher IQ. Each proceeding child has a lower IQ. Of course, I don't know if this was bunk or what study they were talking about.

lionking · 30th January 2011, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Logic would suggest to me that having older siblings was good for the developing brain. All those brothers and sisters with whom to play games, do homework and generally create a lively, stimulating environment. But the pop psychologists seem to be saying my hunch is wrong.

Not only do I think this, I've observed it.

23_Tauri · 30th January 2011, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by ria_rokz

I remember learning in a psych course I took that the studies find the opposite; the oldest child gets the most attention from adults, and generally has a higher IQ. Each proceeding child has a lower IQ. Of course, I don't know if this was bunk or what study they were talking about.

There is a logic to that, but being a generalisation (if that's what it is, assuming that's what studies show) it doesn't take into account the great variation between family groups, for example families where the older siblings take on a quasi-guiding role, answering the constant 'why?' questions, helping with the homework, sharing chores and the like. I guess the great variation between families and different dynamics is why the correlation between IQ and birth order isn't that strong.

23_Tauri · 30th January 2011, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

Not only do I think this, I've observed it.

Me too.

ria_rokz · 30th January 2011, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

There is a logic to that, but being a generalisation (if that's what it is, assuming that's what studies show) it doesn't take into account the great variation between family groups, for example families where the older siblings take on a quasi-guiding role, answering the constant 'why?' questions, helping with the homework, sharing chores and the like. I guess the great variation between families and different dynamics is why the correlation between IQ and birth order isn't that strong.

There are definitely significant variations in dynamics, and you're right, I don't think the correlation is that strong. What you say sounds reasonable to me. I just wanted to offer a blurb on the explanation I'd been given (which I now realize is over ten years old... yikes!).

Weak Kitten · 30th January 2011, 01:10 PM

I am very nearly the exact opposite of their description of an only child. About the only things they got right was the interacting well with adults and not understanding some sibling-like interactions (like friendly teasing).

Wow, what do you know. People are individuals and about the only thing you can predict are those things they might learn directly from their environment (like not knowing how to deal with sibling-like behavior because you have never encountered it before).

23_Tauri · 30th January 2011, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by ria_rokz

There are definitely significant variations in dynamics, and you're right, I don't think the correlation is that strong. What you say sounds reasonable to me. I just wanted to offer a blurb on the explanation I'd been given (which I now realize is over ten years old... yikes!).

And I'm glad you posted it ria, my response was not a criticism at all.

ria_rokz · 30th January 2011, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

And I'm glad you posted it ria, my response was not a criticism at all.

Don't worry, it didn't sound like one!

Verde · 30th January 2011, 02:07 PM

My older brother was stillborn. England, early 50s, not an uncommon event.

As far as I could tell, I was the replacement.

My younger brother was claimed to be a 'surprise', but has grown up to be a fine person.

The concept of birth-order comes up once in a while and I consider it to be poppycock.

V.

I Ratant · 30th January 2011, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

I am very nearly the exact opposite of their description of an only child. About the only things they got right was the interacting well with adults and not understanding some sibling-like interactions (like friendly teasing).

Wow, what do you know. People are individuals and about the only thing you can predict are those things they might learn directly from their environment (like not knowing how to deal with sibling-like behavior because you have never encountered it before).

.
Beating up on the younger brother is an educational experience, which comes in handy later in life.
AFROTC gym class... I'd put on the boxing gloves, and some subject would too...
A direct to the face past his guard, and we could spend the rest of the session playing at boxing.

I Ratant · 30th January 2011, 03:58 PM

One of my most treasured gal friends grew up hearing her parents tell her she was a "faux pas".
Led to a life of dissolution and degradation, until she straightened herself.
Supremely intelligent and personable... but her grand dad imprinted her with white supremacy, which really screwed her up.

Dancing David · 31st January 2011, 05:03 AM

The problem is that the metrics of personality are usually so bague as to be meaningless, too much cross categorization.

Rolfe · 31st January 2011, 07:08 AM

Something struck me when I was at school. It was the dimmer members of the class who had older siblings at the school. Then later, the siblnigs of the bright ones started showing up, among the junior intake.

I don't know whether these siblings were the dimmer members of their particular classes though.

Rolfe.

Hitch · 31st January 2011, 07:53 AM

I just glanced through the Daily Mail article, that's no more a scientific study than your average daily horoscope listing. Each birth order position has about 8 (sometimes contradictory) characteristics associated with it. Any given person checking how it relates to them is going to find a couple near matches and think there might be something to it. Of course, there's a couple more that completely miss the mark and a couple that don't seem to apply one way or the other, but that's boring and we don't think about those. All this is is another exercise in showing how you can write something that seems to apply to anyone. Like handing a classroom full of subjects identical "personalized" personality evaluations and getting most of them to agree it fits them.

Rrose Selavy · 31st January 2011, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Hitch

I just glanced through the Daily Mail article, that's no more a scientific study than your average daily horoscope listing. Each birth order position has about 8 (sometimes contradictory) characteristics associated with it. Any given person checking how it relates to them is going to find a couple near matches and think there might be something to it. Of course, there's a couple more that completely miss the mark and a couple that don't seem to apply one way or the other, but that's boring and we don't think about those. All this is is another exercise in showing how you can write something that seems to apply to anyone. Like handing a classroom full of subjects identical "personalized" personality evaluations and getting most of them to agree it fits them.

as I said in the OP - Barnum statements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

Mr.D · 31st January 2011, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by ria_rokz

I remember learning in a psych course I took that the studies find the opposite; the oldest child gets the most attention from adults, and generally has a higher IQ. Each proceeding child has a lower IQ. Of course, I don't know if this was bunk or what study they were talking about.

Either way, one of these kids is screwed!

On a more serious note: Are these studies about actual order of birth to a particular mother or about order of age of children in a family?

What I mean is: One could easily imagine a case where an infant, who is the firstborn to her biological mother is adopted into a family that already has several children.

In other words, are these studies more about possible biological differences with regard to how many children the biological mother has had or more about the sociology of eldest/youngest child etc?

Rrose Selavy · 1st February 2011, 02:54 AM

From what I understand , many of the same principles are still supposed to apply if you are adopted and take your place in a family as the youngest for example if any of it is to be believed.
Most seem to be about the relationship between a child and the rest of the family rather than any inherent genetic disposition. I do wonder as more children are born to an older mother ( I write as the youngest of three) whether something genetically determined is somehow subtlely altered or degraded in some way with each birth (eg the chances of a child with chromosome abnormalities such as Down's Syndrome are greater as the Mother gets older) .

29th January 2011, 09:29 AM	#1
Rrose Selavy Stranded in Sub-Atomica Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,955	birth order, personality Well having just come across this (I know it's the Daily Mail) A psychologist plugs their new book on supposed birth order on personality. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ules-life.html The above reads like a load of vague Barnum statements, so I'm sceptical and so is the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_order Tried searching here on the forum and the search is useless for "birth order" , surprised if it hasn't been covered in a thread. Anyway any thoughts on the issue, other than anecdotes like "yeah that's me I'm a typical ~~Aries~~/ youngest child " ? EDIT: Sorry meant to post this in Skepticism , so please go there , unless the mods decide otherwise. I'll ask them to delete this dup.
	Last edited by Rrose Selavy; 29th January 2011 at 09:32 AM.

29th January 2011, 09:30 AM	#2
Rrose Selavy Stranded in Sub-Atomica Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,955	birth order, personality Well having just come across this (I know it's the Daily Mail) A "pop" psychologist plugs their new book on supposed birth order influence on personality. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351567/First-born-Piggy-middle-Or-baby-How-place-family-rules-life.html I'm sceptical, the above reads like a load of vague Barnum statements, and so is the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_order Tried searching here on the forum and the search is useless for "birth order" , surprised if it hasn't been covered in a thread. Anyway any thoughts on the issue?, other than anecdotes like "yeah that's me I'm a typical ~~Aries~~/ youngest child " ?

29th January 2011, 09:49 AM	#3
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	There are epigenetic effects which depend on birth order, usually to the detriment of those born later, and certainly the social environment into which younger children are born is different than the social environment into which older children are born. I doubt that any of this translates to statistically valid personality profiles. Edit: I don't read Skepticism, so I guess that's all I'll have to say.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy. Last edited by bokonon; 29th January 2011 at 09:50 AM.

29th January 2011, 11:09 AM	#6
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,887	Wasn't 'birth order' mentioned in one of the homosexuality threads? And wasn't it discredited?
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,887	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

29th January 2011, 11:10 AM	#7
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,450	An article in Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...by-birth-order
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

29th January 2011, 10:04 AM	#4
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Middle child here, more tolerant than the ends.

29th January 2011, 11:05 AM	#5
AnnoyingPony Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 366	First child here, and I'm a borderline hermit.

29th January 2011, 11:16 AM	#8
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	I pulled these out of the Scientific American article: Quote: 2007 Norwegian epidemiologists Petter Kristensen and Tor Bjerkedal published work showing a small but reliable negative correlation between IQ and birth order: the more older siblings one has, the lower one’s IQ. Quote: ... the evidence seems to be shifting back in favor of our common intuition that our position in our family somehow affects who we become. The details, however, remain vague. ... and ... Quote: It’s fine for scientists to say “more study is needed,” but we must find love, gain self-knowledge and parent children now. The bottom line? Actual cause-and-effect of birth order versus personality is not yet - or likely will never be - experimentally confirmed, although there seems to be a greater correlation between wealth, family size and relative success of offspring.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

29th January 2011, 11:41 AM	#9
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by I Ratant Middle child here, more tolerant than the ends. . And somewhat of a recluse.

29th January 2011, 02:12 PM	#10
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Fnord I pulled these out of the Scientific American article: ... and ... The bottom line? Actual cause-and-effect of birth order versus personality is not yet - or likely will never be - experimentally confirmed, although there seems to be a greater correlation between wealth, family size and relative success of offspring. The more kids, the stupider the average kid. The higher in the birth order, the smarter. This maxxes out at the oldest in a 2 child family with an age delta of 2 years 8 months. I rolled well. 2y8m26d
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 29th January 2011 at 02:15 PM.

29th January 2011, 02:47 PM	#11
23_Tauri Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: UK Posts: 4,947	Quote: 2007 Norwegian epidemiologists Petter Kristensen and Tor Bjerkedal published work showing a small but reliable negative correlation between IQ and birth order: the more older siblings one has, the lower one’s IQ. Me number six.

29th January 2011, 03:19 PM	#12
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	One of my lady friends was well done the birth order in her family... 10th or so, and quite intelligent, personable, capable, and bipolar.

29th January 2011, 03:36 PM	#13
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,986	Well, we have five middle children, and they are all as different as chalk and cheese. And our seventh is showing signs of being the brightest of them all, closely followed by our sixth. The model doesn't fit us.

29th January 2011, 06:14 PM	#14
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,373	Originally Posted by Beerina The more kids, the stupider the average kid. The higher in the birth order, the smarter. Really? The youngest of our 11 children scored very high in reading comprehension/level when she started grade 4 at her new school. Highest in her class. She was reading at a grade 8 level and quite impressed her teacher. Pretty smart kid, and we've treated her no differently than any of the other children in the family. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

29th January 2011, 06:23 PM	#15
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,986	Originally Posted by RayG Really? The youngest of our 11 children scored very high in reading comprehension/level when she started grade 4 at her new school. Highest in her class. She was reading at a grade 8 level and quite impressed her teacher. Pretty smart kid, and we've treated her no differently than any of the other children in the family. RayG Serious? You have 11 kids? I thought I was stupid.

29th January 2011, 07:09 PM	#16
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,373	Yup, all mine, no blended family, no adoptions. Six girls, five boys. Still have nine of them living with me, so my grocery bill is enormous. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

29th January 2011, 07:16 PM	#17
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,986	Originally Posted by RayG Yup, all mine, no blended family, no adoptions. Six girls, five boys. Still have nine of them living with me, so my grocery bill is enormous. RayG Four girls, three boys for us, but only three left at home. I've never had to worry about where my paycheck went.

29th January 2011, 07:20 PM	#18
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,373	HA!!! I can soooooo relate to what you're saying. I spend so much time at the grocery store, the cashiers are starting to call me by my first name. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

29th January 2011, 08:18 PM	#19
Modified Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: SW Florida Posts: 4,062	Originally Posted by lionking Well, we have five middle children, and they are all as different as chalk and cheese. And our seventh is showing signs of being the brightest of them all, closely followed by our sixth. The model doesn't fit us. Well, how strong is the correlation supposed to be? Not all that strong, I would guess.

29th January 2011, 09:33 PM	#20
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,756	I'm number 7 and last and I am definitely not the one with the lowest IQ...
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

30th January 2011, 09:48 AM	#21
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by RayG Yup, all mine, no blended family, no adoptions. Six girls, five boys. Still have nine of them living with me, so my grocery bill is enormous. RayG . At least you have a stay-at-home hobby.

30th January 2011, 10:20 AM	#22
23_Tauri Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: UK Posts: 4,947	Logic would suggest to me that having older siblings was good for the developing brain. All those brothers and sisters with whom to play games, do homework and generally create a lively, stimulating environment. But the pop psychologists seem to be saying my hunch is wrong.

30th January 2011, 12:03 PM	#23
ria_rokz Muse Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 534	Originally Posted by 23_Tauri Logic would suggest to me that having older siblings was good for the developing brain. All those brothers and sisters with whom to play games, do homework and generally create a lively, stimulating environment. But the pop psychologists seem to be saying my hunch is wrong. I remember learning in a psych course I took that the studies find the opposite; the oldest child gets the most attention from adults, and generally has a higher IQ. Each proceeding child has a lower IQ. Of course, I don't know if this was bunk or what study they were talking about.
	__________________ ~ Ria ~ <insert original, funny, and thought-provoking quote here>

30th January 2011, 12:07 PM	#24
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,986	Originally Posted by 23_Tauri Logic would suggest to me that having older siblings was good for the developing brain. All those brothers and sisters with whom to play games, do homework and generally create a lively, stimulating environment. But the pop psychologists seem to be saying my hunch is wrong. Not only do I think this, I've observed it.

30th January 2011, 12:39 PM	#25
23_Tauri Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: UK Posts: 4,947	Originally Posted by ria_rokz I remember learning in a psych course I took that the studies find the opposite; the oldest child gets the most attention from adults, and generally has a higher IQ. Each proceeding child has a lower IQ. Of course, I don't know if this was bunk or what study they were talking about. There is a logic to that, but being a generalisation (if that's what it is, assuming that's what studies show) it doesn't take into account the great variation between family groups, for example families where the older siblings take on a quasi-guiding role, answering the constant 'why?' questions, helping with the homework, sharing chores and the like. I guess the great variation between families and different dynamics is why the correlation between IQ and birth order isn't that strong.

30th January 2011, 12:41 PM	#26
23_Tauri Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: UK Posts: 4,947	Originally Posted by lionking Not only do I think this, I've observed it. Me too.

30th January 2011, 12:48 PM	#27
ria_rokz Muse Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 534	Originally Posted by 23_Tauri There is a logic to that, but being a generalisation (if that's what it is, assuming that's what studies show) it doesn't take into account the great variation between family groups, for example families where the older siblings take on a quasi-guiding role, answering the constant 'why?' questions, helping with the homework, sharing chores and the like. I guess the great variation between families and different dynamics is why the correlation between IQ and birth order isn't that strong. There are definitely significant variations in dynamics, and you're right, I don't think the correlation is that strong. What you say sounds reasonable to me. I just wanted to offer a blurb on the explanation I'd been given (which I now realize is over ten years old... yikes!).
	__________________ ~ Ria ~ <insert original, funny, and thought-provoking quote here>

30th January 2011, 01:10 PM	#28
Weak Kitten Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lost and lonely...will you be my friend? Posts: 1,808	I am very nearly the exact opposite of their description of an only child. About the only things they got right was the interacting well with adults and not understanding some sibling-like interactions (like friendly teasing). Wow, what do you know. People are individuals and about the only thing you can predict are those things they might learn directly from their environment (like not knowing how to deal with sibling-like behavior because you have never encountered it before).
	__________________ A quick reminder to all participants that although incomprehensibility is not against the Membership Agreement, incivility is. Please try and remember this, and keep your exchanges polite and respectful. -arthwollipot

30th January 2011, 01:11 PM	#29
23_Tauri Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: UK Posts: 4,947	Originally Posted by ria_rokz There are definitely significant variations in dynamics, and you're right, I don't think the correlation is that strong. What you say sounds reasonable to me. I just wanted to offer a blurb on the explanation I'd been given (which I now realize is over ten years old... yikes!). And I'm glad you posted it ria, my response was not a criticism at all.

30th January 2011, 01:16 PM	#30
ria_rokz Muse Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 534	Originally Posted by 23_Tauri And I'm glad you posted it ria, my response was not a criticism at all. Don't worry, it didn't sound like one!
	__________________ ~ Ria ~ <insert original, funny, and thought-provoking quote here>

30th January 2011, 02:07 PM	#31
Verde Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Where the jackalopes roam. Posts: 817	My older brother was stillborn. England, early 50s, not an uncommon event. As far as I could tell, I was the replacement. My younger brother was claimed to be a 'surprise', but has grown up to be a fine person. The concept of birth-order comes up once in a while and I consider it to be poppycock. V.
	__________________ It makes sense, if you don't think about it. - T-Mobile ad You're innocent when you dream. - Tom Waits Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool. - Samuel Clemens

30th January 2011, 03:55 PM	#32
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Weak Kitten I am very nearly the exact opposite of their description of an only child. About the only things they got right was the interacting well with adults and not understanding some sibling-like interactions (like friendly teasing). Wow, what do you know. People are individuals and about the only thing you can predict are those things they might learn directly from their environment (like not knowing how to deal with sibling-like behavior because you have never encountered it before). . Beating up on the younger brother is an educational experience, which comes in handy later in life. AFROTC gym class... I'd put on the boxing gloves, and some subject would too... A direct to the face past his guard, and we could spend the rest of the session playing at boxing.

30th January 2011, 03:58 PM	#33
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	One of my most treasured gal friends grew up hearing her parents tell her she was a "faux pas". Led to a life of dissolution and degradation, until she straightened herself. Supremely intelligent and personable... but her grand dad imprinted her with white supremacy, which really screwed her up.

31st January 2011, 05:03 AM	#34
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,931	The problem is that the metrics of personality are usually so bague as to be meaningless, too much cross categorization.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

31st January 2011, 07:08 AM	#35
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,409	Something struck me when I was at school. It was the dimmer members of the class who had older siblings at the school. Then later, the siblnigs of the bright ones started showing up, among the junior intake. I don't know whether these siblings were the dimmer members of their particular classes though. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.