Study Says Eldest Children Have Higher I.Q.s

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

BoMac

Self-righteous bullshitter
Joined
Aug 2, 2000
Messages
16,897
Location
Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
As the eldest sibling in my family I find this interesting. I won't say if this applies in my case or not, but what do you guys think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/s...ei=5087 &em&en=2c653020aceebf37&ex=1182830400
Study Says Eldest Children Have Higher I.Q.s


By BENEDICT CAREY

The eldest children in families tend to develop higher I.Q.’s than their siblings, researchers are reporting today, in a large study that could settle more than a half-century of scientific debate about the relationship between I.Q. and birth order.

The average difference in I.Q. was slight — three points higher in the eldest child than in the closest sibling — but significant, the researchers said. And they said the results made it clear that it was due to family dynamics, not to biological factors like prenatal environment.

Researchers have long had evidence that firstborns tended to be more dutiful and cautious than their siblings, and some previous studies found significant I.Q. differences. But critics said those reports were not conclusive, because they did not take into account the vast differences in upbringing among families.

Three points on an I.Q. test may not sound like much. But experts say it can be a tipping point for some people — the difference between a high B average and a low A, for instance. That, in turn, can have a cumulative effect that could mean the difference between admission to an elite private liberal-arts college and a less exclusive public one.

Moreover, researchers said yesterday that the results — being published today in separate papers in two journals, Science and Intelligence — would lead to more intensive study into the family dynamics behind such differences. Though the study was done in men, the scientists said the results would almost certainly apply to women as well.

“I consider these two papers the most important publications to come out in this field in 70 years; it’s a dream come true,” said Frank J. Sulloway, a psychologist at the Institute of Personality and Social Research at the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Sulloway, who was not involved in the study but wrote an editorial accompanying it, added that “there was some room for doubt about this effect before, but that room has now been eliminated.”

Effects of birth order are notoriously difficult to study, and some critics are still dubious. Joseph Lee Rodgers, a psychologist at the University of Oklahoma and a longtime skeptic of such effects, said the new analysis was not conclusive.

“Past research included hundreds of reported birth order effects” that were not legitimate, Dr. Rodgers wrote in an e-mail message. “I’m not sure whether the patterns in the Science article are real or not; more description of methodology is required.”

In the study, Norwegian epidemiologists analyzed data on birth order, health status and I.Q. scores of 241,310 18- and 19-year-old men born from 1967 to 1976, using military records. After correcting for factors that may affect scores, including parents’ education level, maternal age at birth and family size, the researchers found that eldest children scored an average of 103.2, about 3 percent higher than second children (100.3) and 4 percent higher than thirdborns (99.0).

The difference was an average, meaning that it varied by family and showed up in most families but not all.

The scientists then looked at I.Q. scores in 63,951 pairs of brothers, and found the same results. Differences in household environments did not explain elder siblings’ higher scores.

Because sex has little effect on I.Q. scores, the results almost certainly apply to females as well, said Dr. Petter Kristensen, an epidemiologist at the University of Oslo and the lead author of the Science study. His co-author was Dr. Tor Bjerkedal, an epidemiologist at the Norwegian Armed Forces Medical Services.

To test whether the difference could be due to biological factors, the researchers examined the scores of young men who became the eldest in the household after an older sibling had died. Their scores came out the same, on average, as those of biological firstborns.

“This is quite firm evidence that the biological explanation is not true,” Dr. Kristensen said in a telephone interview.

Social scientists have proposed several theories to explain how birth order might affect intelligence scores. Firstborns have their parents’ undivided attention as infants, and even if that attention is later divided evenly with a sibling or more, it means that over time they will have more cumulative adult attention, in theory enriching their vocabulary and reasoning abilities.

But this argument does not explain a consistent finding in children under 12: among these youngsters, later-born siblings actually tend to outscore the eldest on I.Q. tests. Researchers theorize that this precociousness may reflect how new children alter the family’s overall intellectual resource pool.

Adding a young child may, in a sense, diminish the family’s overall intellectual environment, as far as an older sibling is concerned; yet the younger sibling benefits from the maturity of both the parents and the older brother or sister. This dynamic may quickly cancel and reverse the head start the older child received from his parents.

Still, the question remains: How do the elders sneak back to the head of the class?

One possibility, proposed by the psychologist Robert Zajonc, is that older siblings consolidate and organize their knowledge in their natural roles as tutors to junior. These lessons, in short, benefit the teacher more than the student.

Another potential explanation concerns how siblings find a niche in the family. Some studies find that both the older and younger siblings tend to describe the firstborn as more disciplined, responsible, high-achieving. Studies suggest — and parents know from experience — that to distinguish themselves, younger siblings often develop other skills, like social charm, a good curveball, mastery of the electric bass, acting skills.

“Like Darwin’s finches, they are eking out alternative ways of deriving the maximum benefit out of the environment, and not directly competing for the same resources as the eldest,” Dr. Sulloway said. “They are developing diverse interests and expertise that the I.Q. tests do not measure.”

This kind of experimentation might explain evidence that younger siblings often live more adventurous lives than their older brother or sister. They are more likely to participate in dangerous sports than eldest children, and more likely to travel to exotic places, studies find. They tend to be less conventional than firstborns, and some of the most provocative and influential figures in science spent their childhoods in the shadow of an older brother or sister (or two or three or four).

Charles Darwin, author of the revolutionary “Origin of Species,” was the fifth of six children. Nicolaus Copernicus, the Polish-born astronomer who determined that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the planetary system, grew up the youngest of four. The mathematician and philosopher René Descartes, the youngest of three, was a key figure in the scientific revolution that began in the 16th century.

Firstborns have won more Nobel Prizes in science than younger siblings, but often by advancing current understanding, rather than overturning it.

“It’s the difference between every-year or every-decade creativity and every-century creativity,” Dr. Sulloway said, “between innovation and radical innovation.”
 
Don't have time to respond right now, but I find this topic more interesting than it appears deep does.
 
My older sister is much smarter than me. It's not like I'm in the corner eating paste or anything but she always got A's while I was chuffed when I got a C, B or the occasional A. She was focused on the books while I watched the world around me. Even now that we're older I find it much easier in social situations so maybe it that older siblings are book smart but the younger ones are street smart.
Just the ramblings from the baby of the family:sigh: :der:
 
I don't buy it.

"correcting for factors that may affect scores, including parents’ education level, maternal age at birth and family size" sounds a whole lot like fudging our #'s to get to that whopping 3-point difference. Think about it...girl has a child @ 15, the kid doesn't get the best upbringing...then she has a child a bit later, who sees a bit more stability in his early years, and ends up with higher IQ scores. Oops, gotta toss that one out...
 
I think there are many variables, including many factors that go on within a family and the dynamic and the relationship and the differences in child rearing and parenting and parental attitudes. I am a middle and the only girl, and honestly my older brother is not the most intelligent one-IQ wise or otherwise. He does not fit the stereotype of the oldest child at all. Personally I think the middle is the toughest especially if you are the only girl or boy, and intelligence can be hard won in that case-on your own in many ways.
 
You always have to correct for many things in studies like this.

I've noticed a trend in people's reception of this study. Excepting Mandy, older siblings tend to dig it, while younger siblings discredit/criticize it. :wink:
 
Actually, as the eldest, I hate this study. I may be smarter, but I'm more rigid and boring. I'd be glad to hand over those extra 3 points.
 
I'm the youngest of three. My middle sister did the best in school academically, my oldest sister is quite smart and probably does have a higher IQ than me but is also kind of screwed up, and she's the artist in the family. My guess is that the middle sister in my family has the highest IQ, although I was shocked recently to learn that she perceives me as the smartest. I think the thing is we're all good at different things and smart in different ways. They're good with money, math, real estate, children, practical things. I've got street smarts, have traveled more, have a broader perspective, the best job, and have my head more together. I also don't have children and seem to have more time to read and follow politics and learn about things that they don't have time for so it often seems that I'm more knowledgeable about what's going on in the world which is probably what makes my middle sister think I'm so smart. If we all 3 took an actual IQ test together, my score would probably be the lowest. :shrug:
 
cinnaminson said:
My older sister is much smarter than me. It's not like I'm in the corner eating paste or anything but she always got A's while I was chuffed when I got a C, B or the occasional A. She was focused on the books while I watched the world around me. Even now that we're older I find it much easier in social situations so maybe it that older siblings are book smart but the younger ones are street smart.
Just the ramblings from the baby of the family:sigh: :der:

or I could have just said "what she said" :)
 
BonosSaint said:
Don't have time to respond right now, but I find this topic more interesting than it appears deep does.


maybe you are right

look what I just found

There have been more first born US Presidents and Nobel Prize Winners than any other birth ranking. Famous first borns include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Turner, Winston Churchill, Jimmy Carter, Geoffrey Boycott, Edward Heath, Cecil Parkinson, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Mussolini, Che Guevara and Carlos the Jackal. In the entertainment profession, firstborns tend to play macho leading roles. Famous firstborn actors include Humphrey Bogart, Sylvester Stallone, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Bruce Willis. First born actresses tend to become leading ladies. They prefer the strong roles and shy away from the damsels in distress. Bette Davis, Joan Collins and Vivien Leigh are all first borns.

that settles it.



wait
but then there is this:huh:

Middle children are said to be diplomatic. They mediate between siblings and are flexible and giving. They have lots of friends, but they can also be manipulative. They can feel elbowed out of a position of significance, or be forced to become the keeper of the peace between their siblings. Many feel forced to assume roles that their older siblings for one reason or another are unable to fulfill and this may leave them with a chip on their shoulder. Famous middle children include: George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Jack Kennedy, George Bush, Damon Hill, Cindy Crawford, Robert Graves, Tony Blair and Edward Elgar.

sure Kennedy, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Washington were all manipulative bastards and very similar presidents. :yes:
 
I just think when they say more "first borns" it is kind of silly.

Every family (with children) has a "first born".

Some families have "second borns" and they may get to be counted as first born is an older sibling passes.


Fewer families have 3rd born and 4th borns.



I would venture to say more "first borns" are criminals and more "first borns" are members of the clergy.


As for this I Q study the margin is so small,
is it credible?

By the way,
I qualify as a "first born"

and as far as I know I am the only one among my siblings that took the Mensa test and qualified.
 
deep said:



maybe you are right

look what I just found



that settles it.



wait
but then there is this:huh:



sure Kennedy, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Washington were all manipulative bastards and very similar presidents. :yes:


:lol: I said interested, not convinced. I'm addicted to watching patterns.
 
I'm the oldest in my family, and I'd say we all have similar IQs. I probably get the best grades, but it's close.
 
It's true in my family (with a larger disparity, and we were both tested so I know our actual numbers). However, although my IQ is higher, my brother is better read than me, a better writer and speaker and not a Type A personality. I'd say he's better adjusted to the world since he seems to have little stress in live (although, my parents have spoon fed him much more than me, so perhaps it's not a wonder).
 
deep said:
look what I just found
Since you left out the rest, :wink:
[more about firstborns]
The only child/first born tends to be an organized, researched thinker. They are subject to high expectations and, as a result, are pleasers. The parents are more anxious, but also give their first born more responsibility. They are most likely to succeed, to be conscientious, get high grades at school, and achieve a higher salary and more conservative job in adulthood. Reliable, serious, rule keeping, self-critical, anxious and perfectionist, the first born enjoys being around adults and provides the link between parents and the younger family members. They’re problem solvers, strong-willed, determined, good listeners, worry about new experiences, controlling, jealous and moralistic.

[and the rest...]
The later born child always has someone ahead of them to compete against. Their parents are more relaxed and less strict with the later born child. They try to establish a place for themselves separate from their older siblings, and so tend to be more creative. The later born child can be rebellious, but also are pleasant, agreeable and easy going. Unlike the first born, they generally don’t excel at school and aren’t concerned with achievement. They’re rebellious, creative, unconventional and always feel like the baby, even in when they are adults. But they can also be practical and competitive, though they can constantly feel like the underdog. They’re likely to be good at sports and art. Famous later borns, and rebels, include Joan of Arc, Charles Darwin, Gandhi, Leon Trotsky, Charlie Chaplin, Bob Hope, George Michael and Sir Laurence Olivier..

Having to compete for their parents attention, the youngest has good coping mechanisms in place. They get special privileges and more relaxed parents, but because of this they tend to have less self-control. The youngest child can be a risk-taker, a joker and an exhibitionist. They are humorous and charming but also fresh and somewhat over the top. Youngest children are entertaining and know how to get noticed, Jerry Springer is a perfect example. Ted Kennedy is the youngest of the Kennedy clan and did not learn to accept the responsibility of being a member of that clan until he was well into adulthood. In the entertainment world they tend to play more dramatic roles. Sydney Poitier is the youngest of seven children.
Not that I'm up on this "birth order" stuff, but I didn't realize there was such a thing as a distinct "later born" category. So how do you break it down with a family of 5 like I grew up in, or an even larger family where there are 8 or 10? Which category or categories do you stretch? Of course in the case of the IQ thing, the trend (according to the article) is for it to drop with each sibling...

I have no idea what the IQ range is like for my family, and wouldn't really have a clue how to go about deciding who I think is "smarter"...I guess if this model happens to hold true in our case, I'm "dumber" than my older brothers but "smarter" than my younger brother and sister. I have no idea whether that "sounds right" or not really. :shrug:
 
yolland said:

I'm "dumber" than my older brothers

My gosh, they must be genuises! I have a hard time visualizing you as "dumber" than anyone! :)
 
I definately felt growing up that there was some effect being the oldest because I had to fight for rules to be relaxed, freedoms, allowance increases, and do chores like the dishes alone until my sister shared them (and by the time I went to college the whole family was doing them). I don't know if that accounts for higher IQ or just that I'm more independent and assertive than her, and she can be more entitled. (There might be a lot to this that is unrelated to order - we aren't genetically related, for example, so our very different personalities have that as a source as well.)
 
reading all this stuff, it all makes sense for my family. i can read all of this stuff and nod and make the behavior of my siblings and i fit all of these various categories. i am the eldest, and probably am more "IQ" smart than my brother and sister, but both of them are in possession of certain intelligences that i do not have. my middle brother gets along with everyone and everyone likes him and my sister probably does have the least amount of self-control as she was the first to jump out of an airplane and also was the only one of us to experiment with real drugs.

but then, i can make the same heads and tails out of horoscopes. :shrug:
 
yolland said:

Since you left out the rest, :wink:




thanks
I guess the evidence is quite compelling.

Youngest children are entertaining and know how to get noticed, Jerry Springer is a perfect example. Ted Kennedy is the youngest of the Kennedy clan and did not learn to accept the responsibility of being a member of that clan until he was well into adulthood. In the entertainment world they tend to play more dramatic roles. Sydney Poitier is the youngest of seven children.

I always get Ted Kennedy, Springer and Poitier mixed up.
I'm sold.







But,
back to the study.


It might have more weight with me if they took 500 families that each had 4 children within 10 years of age between them.

A better control group.


It is like this stat

most car accidents take place within 10 miles of home.

not 200 miles?

Wow, don't you think most people would be better drivers on familiar roads?
 
Irvine511 said:


but then, i can make the same heads and tails out of horoscopes. :shrug:

bingo


finally

a bit of skepticism

I have been busy printing up my sales brochures for the Brooklyn Bridge.
 
it is true, though, that i feel a much more acute level of resonsibility than my siblings. i feel tremendous pressure to succeed and try to please everybody.

my brother is the most social of the three of us. everyone loves him. he had a wide variety of friends in high school as well -- from kids with perfect SATs to kids who became mechanics.

my sister is the hippie, the vegetarian, the most complex, probably, and somehow always becomes the center of attention via drama.

so all that is true. but there are days when my horoscope is eerie.
 
Just give me your credit card no. and this Beautiful Bridge is yours.

Irvine511 said:
it is true, though, that i feel a much more acute level of resonsibility than my siblings. i feel tremendous pressure to succeed and try to please everybody.

my brother is the most social of the three of us. everyone loves him. he had a wide variety of friends


Funny I was just in another forum

and he wrote the same thing about you.


Irvine511 said:
but there are days when my horoscope is eerie.

Yeah

the same thing always happened to me, too.


and then I realized I did not have the columns line up properly.
And I had been reading the wrong sign for years.




and finally

I can still hear the words from my whacky old aunt that passed on a couple of years back.

"You can talk yourself into believing anything."
 
Back
Top Bottom