First Born's Smarter?

[Gary Sisco]

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...la-home-center

I've always known this... ;-)

[Brian Olewnick]

Yep, I'm living proof of it.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

Not true! Second born, dammit.

[groover]

I must be exceptional, too, Jimmy, although...

Kristensen said it was clear the results don't apply to all families and the odds of the first child being smarter are not overwhelming.

Among brothers with unequal IQ scores, there was a 56.7% probability that the oldest brother would score higher, he said.

[Gary Sisco]

That's not bad odds. I'd be playing the lottery every day with that kind of probability in play.

[Noj]

My middle brother Dan is a friggin' genius, he's a structural engineer. My oldest brother and myself got cheated.

[hornplayer]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Yep, I'm living proof of it.

But of course! Me, too!

[larrycohen]

First of all, 2 or 3 points doesn't mean much. Second, they're talking about IQ, which measure's what? Intelligence is a vague thing, with many aspects to it.

I don't have any statistics, but I think it's more accurate to say that first-borns are the achievers, which reflects ambition, not smarts. Those of us who are the youngest are probably happier and more fun to be with (not to mention charming, witty and better looking).
Oh - I almost forgot - we're humble too.

[bostontricky]

Originally Posted by larrycohen

Those of us who are the youngest are probably happier and more fun to be with (not to mention charming, witty and better looking).

(Tricky smacks Larry upside head and gives him a wedgie by proxy for his younger brothers)

[larrycohen]

Originally Posted by bostontricky

(Tricky smacks Larry upside head and gives him a wedgie by proxy for his younger brothers)

(Larry cries to mommy, and tricky gets punished. Ha-ha.)

[groover]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

That's not bad odds. I'd be playing the lottery every day with that kind of probability in play.

Sure, but if there's a 43.3% chance of a later-born being smarter, would you consider it a rare event?

[Gentle Giant]

I find this to be the most interesting aspect of the study:

With these results in hand, Kristensen then pursued a deeper question: What was the cause of this disparity?

Using the same data, he looked at second- and third-born men who became the eldest in their families due to the death of one or two older siblings.

He found that those men had IQs close to that of firstborns, with second-born men at 102.9 and third-borns at 102.6.

The findings suggested that the mechanism behind the birth-order effect is not biological but related to social interactions within families.

He surmised that older children are showered with attention early in life and treated as leaders in the family. They are handed more responsibility after younger siblings are born and live with higher expectations from their parents.

My parents' firstborn child was my sister Donna, who died of leukemia when she was 7 years old. My older sister Amy was not yet five, and I had just turned a year old. Amy remembers my father telling her that she had to be the big sister now. I've always been sympathetic to the fact that Amy had the responsibilities of a firstborn without the exclusivity; ie, she never got my parents' undivided attention. At least she might be smarter, theoretically.

[steve(thelil)]

As a first born, I find it comforting news that I'm smarter than my more successful and well-adjusted siblings.

[Gary Sisco]

Me, too. ;-)

[GoodSpeak]

Me too, uh...also.

[gonzo]

first borns are given more individual attention for a longer period of time than siblings.could this be a factor?

[Sand]

Originally Posted by larrycohen

First of all, 2 or 3 points doesn't mean much. Second, they're talking about IQ, which measure's what? Intelligence is a vague thing, with many aspects to it.

I don't have any statistics, but I think it's more accurate to say that first-borns are the achievers, which reflects ambition, not smarts. Those of us who are the youngest are probably happier and more fun to be with (not to mention charming, witty and better looking).
Oh - I almost forgot - we're humble too.

Yeah, that's pretty accurate.

[Gary Sisco]

I've been allergic to ambition all my life.

Actually, if the articles stats are correct (I don't trust stats because they are so easily manipulated) a few points seem to make a lot of difference later on, on SATs and so forth, not that I consider them a measure of much. I've had some summa cum wazoos work for me that clearly no how to make good grades but that was just about all they knew. Dumb as hammers otherwise, in many ways.

I just posted the article as a joke, being a first born. My brother (the third born) is smarter than me in lots of ways and he just stopped going to school in eighth grade; the school authorities just pretended not to notice. My sister in between the two of us worked her way through nursing school, first in class, and then worked her way through university, first in class -- a high school dropout, like the rest of us.

[clinthopson]

Being an only, I was obviously the most brilliant kid.

My firstborn son, is probably a bit smarter than his brother, who is no dummy.

Donna's first born, a girl is a doctor. The second born son is pretty bright but has no academic accomplishments.

[Sandi22]

Rich has a younger brother.

He has always said "My brother is an only child".

We've even had people in the small town they're from ask if he were adopted.

I have a younger brother, nine years younger, and a younger sister, 11 years younger. We each have our own areas of smarts, and our own areas of being as dumb as tree stumps. We're a strange blend of both.

[GoodSpeak]

We all are, Sandi.

[Sandi22]

Think so?

Good to hear, now I don't feel so alone.

[patricia]

My own theory about first-borns is that for a period of time they are their parents' only representative out there and much is expected of them.
Anyone who has raised children, or watched children closely knows that if you expect excellence from a child they will achieve more than if you expect nothing but for them to just be.
I'm not sure about actual intelligence superiority in the first-born.
But I'm convinced that there is a level of early intellectual maturity that first-borns develop, simply by being the only child, even briefly, living with two adults.
The conversations would be on a more mature level and the child would relate to that.
Also, if siblings come along later, the parents quite often expect the oldest to help them with the younger ones and to be the example as well as the protector when they are out in the world.

[I'm the second-born of four and am the only girl.]

[Sandi22]

With first borns there's two ways of having things, first the attention is smothering at times, and then there's the fact that often times their parents think to themselves and will oftentimes even tell you how they're going to have that "perfect child", at least in so many words; if not outright saying it. First children are oftentimes raised in this strange mix of love and overbearing discipline, and I'm not saying spankings; rather it's more like what will, and, will not be allowed, as their parents are working at assuring themselves the perfect child. Just watch they're thinking, it can't help but happen. This can be a big mistake, but they think they're doing the right thing.