Grrrrr . . . Birth Order Theory

Aquajock

Aquajock

Cathlete
I just read a little squib that made my blood boil: it stated that first-borns tend to be smarter, more well-educated and more professionally successful than their younger siblings, because (among other things) they tend to be heavier at birth, get more sole attention from Mommy and Daddy without having to compete with siblings (for a time) and thus are more intellectually stimulated, AND learn by teaching their siblings.

Okay, now . . .

I'm the third of four children born within five years. And sometimes I think my sibs and I are a walking billboard for the stereotypes of birth order theory: oldest sib (sister in my case) seriously bossy and "the family manager", older brother a "black sheep", me (the third) kind of the "forgotten child" who was totally taken for granted because I was obedient and a good student, and a younger brother who is kind of the "Happy Loman" of the gang.

I'll acknowledge all of the above. But I'm d@mned if I'll allow that my sister (THE OLDEST!) is smarter and more professionally successful than I am! (Although she earns about 4 times as much as I do.)

What's the Cathe Gang's take on this? Any insights from your own experiences?

A-Jock
 
I hate the birth order theory - it's just too simplified for me. There are too many factors that change the theory.

For example, in a family with 2 children - one boy and one girl, each child would be treated as the "first" son and the "first daughter" (I guess you could also say each child would be the "youngest boy/girl as well). But if the children were the same gender they may be treated differently depending on their birth order. Also, the age span between siblings is a factor and, obviously, individual personalities.

I have 4 children - 2 of them are twins. So, they would be the same in the birth order, right? They are complete opposites and we treat them differently according to their personalities. My daughter is our youngest child with a big age span between her and her brothers. So, she's the baby of the family, but also gets a lot of benefits that a first-born does because she gets all of my attention during the day while her brothers are in school. Also, she's the first girl.

I'm sure that you are much, much more intelligent than your sister.:D

Erica
 
It's definitely a generalization. But I'll acknowledge that my brother was definitely a higher achiever than I am. He was extremely smart and always succeeded in his career and school. My sister (the middle) and I are also very smart, but not quite as goal-oriented. I'm more successful career-wise than my sister. But she's better at bonding with people and making deep friendships.
 
I'm afraid that it does "almost" always hold true. If you look in history, there are more first born presidents, leaders, etc.... than any other birth order child. Being in the homeschool realm...I have talked to literally hundreds of parents at homeschool conventions that have my same "unique" characteristics occuring with their first borns (I won't go into all the characteristics....but we'll leave it as "uniquely firstborn") as I do with mine. Some seem to be carbon copies.

Of course as with anything...there is always the exception, but across the board...there IS something to this theory like it or not.

Just a side note...I've always wondered if my bipolar tendencies and mental confusion at times, is occuring because I was adopted into my family (at the age of 3 days) and am the youngest of my siblings. BUT because I was adopted...it is almost certain that I should have been born as the oldest (based on the assumption that I was from a young unwed mother and probably her first born). So this has left me torn between being the youngest and the oldest thereby accounting for ALL of my problems in life ;-) ;-) . I joke...yet I HAVE wondered if this affects me more than I realize.

Briee
 
Well, I am smack in the middle and was definitely the "forgotten" child.... I also have a large social circle (but am only close to a select few) and tend to manage relationships well, which are all alleged characteristics of the "middle." My sister is the oldest and can still get me to jump at the tone of her voice. LOL


Cheers,
Marie
 
My siblings and I fall into the pegholes of that theory IN A WAY. Eldest brother is the most successful career-wise, has a Ph.D, has a picture-perfect family, holds the rest of us together, yada yada yada... It'd all make me wanna puke if he weren't my brother, and if he weren't so good to me. Older brother is indeed a black sheep and proud of it. I was pretty low-key, listened well, and got high GPA's, and younger brother is the family clown.

BUT...

Older brother (the second) actually has the highest IQ. When he graduated from high school, his accomplishments and honors were so many, they had to be listed in small print. Eldest Ph.D'd bro has no such claim to fame.

I was far from the forgotten child. Being the unica ija and, in my father's words his "only rose among the thorns", I got too much attention growing up. Too much protection, too much of too many good things. Very unhealthy. Which is why I eventually learned how to push my father's prized car down the street in the middle of the night, start the engine 20 yards from the house, and drive with no lights on until I was out of the area in which we lived.

Younger brother may be family clown but he has his trials and tribulations. Among the three of us older siblings, I'm the one who can see through the jokes, who can read between the lines and tell him, very nicely, to stop BS-ing me.

There are HOLES in that theory. It doesn't take into account the differences in people's personalities, in the way children are raised, in the parenting styles, in the relationships between parent and child and the relationships among siblings, among so many factors... Which is why it remains a theory.

Pinky
 
The thing that makes everyone angry about Birth Order Theory is that it often APPEARS to be true! And there's nothing you can do about it! It's the luck of the draw.

And you really don't want to hear my opinions because - I'm numero uno.:p

I think when you have twins, they come with their own agenda. I'm pretty sure they are never considered in the birth order theory but I read it a long time ago so could be wrong.

And Annette, just because certain desirable attributes seem to come in the firstborn package, doesn't mean squat. Smarter? How? See what I mean? You can be smart and still be a horse's patoot!

Alexis
 
My husband is the eldest of 4 born in 4 yrs. Got his PhD in biophysical chemistry while his siblings got progressively less education, w/ the youngest only 3 semesters of college. All 4 are very bright, hard working and nice people. Sounds exactly like Pinky's brother (black sheep and proud of it!).:eek:
He was only 11 mos. old when his brother came along, so I don't think it had much to do w/ exclusive att'n. from his parents, more w/ a lifetime of 'you're the oldest. set an example.' I think when kids are raised w/ this mindset, they can't wait to get out of the house.
I'm an only child (which birth order books call 'first born in triplicate': super responsible, self-critical etc.) When we had kids, I thought it would be like 'the Waltons'. My husband is my barometer for family health, so when the kids (now all teens) are throwing stuff at each other and screaming, I look to him to shrug, 'this isn't a big deal'. :7
Valerie
 
I am 12 of 13. My sister who's 4 years older must think she's the first born, she's so bossy, but I find it too confusing to figure out how that affects me. My oldest can be a sterotypical first born. In fact, she can be a tyrant, but she's not smarter than number two, only more driven. Number two, Sydney now a middle child, does has middle child tendencies bt she was last for long eough to be an amalgamation of characteristics. She's going to be very accomplished in her more laid back way. Sam, third and last, has characteristics of a first born but with more than, is it five years, the typical birth order dynamic gets messed up. He's less typical of a last born.I read Loman's books many moons ago but I hate pigeonholing as a general rule. Those self-fulfillng prophesies can quell potential. The most accomplished careerwise among my sibs are the single moms. The rest of us followed our own dear mother straight into full-time motherhood. My mom's an incredible mother but as a first born she obviously didn't read the manual. She's incredibly shy, reserved and not driven at all. Asked to peg you, Annette I would have taken you as a first born. I'm a question mark in the birth order game, but I am accomplished at what I set out to do and get tagged as one of the brightest of the whole lot, yes obedient, but driven by my passions. I also have te kicked back, cheerful tendecies of last born but I hve a younger sib, alos kicked back but much ls gregarious than I her middle born sister. aybe it's not hooey but it's not science either.
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"

Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life? - Mary Oliver
 
Bobbi, I don't think the book covered owning your own baseball team. You must have had some awesome pick-up games!

I'm the oldest and only girl with 4 younger brothers. I'd say my youngest brother has the highest IQ and I am the most driven of the bunch.

Between my two boys, Tyler, the oldest, is the most driven (there's that word again) and Micah has the highest IQ.

But that's what I was saying before, "smart how?" My youngest has the street smarts of a puppy yet tests like he's a brainiac. My oldest is constantly thinking and coming up with new goals.

I think that temperments play a large role in birth order but not much else.

Alexis
 
Re: it stated that first-borns tend to be smarter, more well-educated and more professionally successful than their younger siblings

Does this include a twin sis if she is 6 minutes OLDER! And, I don't let her forget it! :p

Your-Friend-In-Fitness, DebbieH (AKA "Den Mother Debbie")http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/wavey.gif[/img] If You Get The Choice To Sit It Out Or Dance...I Hope You DANCE!!!
 
It appears to be pretty accurate but keep in mind there are variables.

In my case, I am the first born and then my sister came along three years later. My brother was born 14 years after my sister. According to the theory, she would not be classified as the middle child because of the age difference. My brother would be classified as an on only child and did my parents ever treat him like one!!! I love him like crazy but boy is he spoiled :+
 
A-Jock,

Being a clinical psychologist, I can say that this theory is not given much attention. That's not to say that how your parents deal with multiple children (did they give more attention to your sister in reality, did your older sister teach you and your sibs, etc) does not have an impact. BUT as a previous poster said, by the time you grow up to adulthood, there are so many other factors that come into play to influence the course of your life that birth order cannot possibly account for much.

I guess for you, the question is - how do you define success? I don't know if anything you mentioned about your sister suggests that she is more intelligent (just bossy) and she may earn more, but does that necessarily equate with success?

From personal experience, I can say that this theory does not hold up at all so far in my family (I'm a twin with an older sister).
 
Well, I am the fourth of seven siblings. The two oldest sisters were always seen as the "less intelligents" and the third and me, the more intelligents. Then, my two little brothers appeared on scene. They were also part of "the most intelligent" clan. And my little sister, the youngest, unfortunately, soon became the "less intelligent". Even though the "most intelligent" clan was composed of four of us: My sister Monica, my two brothers, and me, there were always preferences for Monica and one of my brothers, which today still remain as "The most intelligents". The other brother turned into another "less intelligent", and I turned into a question mark, as I was accepted in the school of architecture, but one year later, dropped out. Then, my second sister made CPA, which I don't know how that is called in English (public accounter authorized, or whatever) and she became respected and seen as "very intelligent". My oldest sister has a baccularate in Business Administration. She is not seen as "very intelligent" but is seen as "succesfull". Monica was making a PhD in geophysics, in MIT, but had to dropp out because of a problem with her back and neck. The doctor told her to take a few years of rest.

You see, being intelligent is not the same as being successful.
That theory surprises me as I always thought that youger siblings were at advantage, benefiting from the knowledge of their older siblings; something that happened in my home. On the other hand, the only ones that are working and "making money" are the ones that were seen as "not much intelligent" in the beginning.

I think nobody knows exactly what intelligence is, in the first place. And intelligence is something difficult to measure. There are many types of intelligence, and many things that can interfere with a person's performance. Sometimes the most intelligent person appears to be stupid. It is useless to compare people, anyway.
 
The theory was created by Alfred Adler, a student of Freud.

Exerpt from my Theories of Personality book "Adler suggested that, because of the loss of power and authority suffered with the birth of a second child, first borns spend their lives trying to regain their lost position through outstanding achievement. They try to establish themselves in a position of power and tend to be more dominant and aggressive. Thus, we would expect first borns to excel in intellectual activities and to gain higher levels of achievement and eminence. According to Adler, the oldest child understands best the importance of power and authority because he or she has to undergo their loss within the family. Consequently, the oldest child will be highly supportive of, and dependent on, authorities in later life.

The second child is likely to view the older brother or sister as a competitior to be overcome. If the older child is protective and supportive of the younger sibling's attempts to excel, healthy development is more probable; if the older child resents the second child and acts maliciously, movement toward neurosis for the younger one is morelikely. Adler also suggested that the second child may set unrealistically high goals, setting themselves up for failure.

The youngest child is typically regarded as the baby of the family and tends to commandeer most of the family's attention. Adler believed that parents are likely to pamper and spoil the youngest member. The result is a person who is excessively dependent on others for support and protection and one who wants to excel in everything he or she does but often fails."

Keep in mind this is a theory. According to my book, the theory pertaining to the oldest sibling is the one most proven through study.
 
I think the relationship you have with your parents is more important than the birth order, particularly if parents show favoritism. Siblings are often very different even when they have similar talents. They almost seem to chose different styles, or gifts, so they can peacefully co-exist (when they aren't fighting like cats and dogs). My mother used to say if you treated your friends the way you treated your family, you wouldn't have any friends. You can tear a sibling to pieces and sit down to dinner later the same day with no hard feelings. Sibs are the touchstones we use to realize our full potential. My husband is an only child and wouldn't want it any other way. When this place gets messy and chaotic, he can't handle it. I thrive in noise and chaos and can walk away, knowing it will all settle down. We are both outgoing, like to think of ourselves as funny and bright. But the way we perceive the normal craziness of a house with 3 monsters is light years apart. He loses his sense of humor when things start bopping and mine engages. My home growing up could never be completely orderly. His had to be. In 18 years I havenot yet convinced him that this is normal!
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"

Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life? - Mary Oliver
 
I had always heard that the youngest was the smartest and most successful, which is true in my family. The oldest I thought was supposed to be the most insecure. Of course, I'm the oldest. Trust me, my younger brothers are smarter and MUCH more successful, if success is measured in dollars.

But I believe that other factors are important. For example, in my family, boys were revered and girls weren't expected to amount to anything. That can override any birth order impact.
 
Well part of it is true, as the one who is the family manager, learns management skills much ealier, and being bossy, really helps to be a manager sometimes.

As for truely being smarter I don't know. I agree that the olcer child does have to learn their own stuff and then help teach the other children, and this they learn different way to look at things. I don't think that actually makes them smarter but it does give them a wider view of things, and it allows them to pick up things faster.

As for point to point on an ICQ test, I have no idea if that would help more or not. But I do believe the oldest, does get the skills to go out in the real world much faster then their sibs, and they are usually more independant as they always had to watch over the younger ones, so being in some type of management or business they usually really go far. As they started learning the skills at 3 or 4 or when ever mom and dad added more kids to the family. So they just a natural at tell people what to do, as that's what they were raised up doing.

Anyway that's my 2 cents.

Kit
 
That begs the question, what is sucess? We might think it's dollars but in the end, it isn't because the best things in life can't be bought. I saw a chart that showed the happiest countires. U.S. was at the top but much of Europe was lower. Quite a number of poorer nations sat along side the U.S. It measured contentment and happiness and showed money meant little as long as one could meet the basic needs.
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"

Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life? - Mary Oliver
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top