There are some books out there about birth order. Are they accurate? I’ve read that first-borns are quite the leaders and mature, whereas the youngest is usually the comedian and wild one in the family. I am the middle child, so kindof stuck in the middle of those 2 explanations. Do these generalizations apply to any of you?
Thanks. 
Well, there’s seven years difference between me and the middle child, so that kind of skews the natural birth order thing.
In my own family the oldest was the caretaker (little mother) and the middle child was the ambitious, extroverted striver. By the time I came along a few years later, the only role left was the shy intellectual.
With my own children, the oldest is far more independent. The birth order skews again because my sons are twins, and whichever one sits in the front seat acts like the older brother.
I understand all the words, they just don’t make sense together like that.
More on the birth order theory:
Being the middle child, Penny-wise, you probably felt somewhat invisible growing up; lost between the high-achiever firstborn and the attention-getting baby.
There’s a lot to the birth order concept, and you’ve got to take extenuating circumstances into account, such as twins, long time-periods between siblings, etcetera. But there is also some truth in the theories, from what I’ve seen.
I distinctly recall determining that I could not be the pretty one or the smart one or the cute one. (So I became the wierd one.)
Birth order may also be skewed because of family dynamics. When the firstborn becomes a coddled mass of insecurity because of a harsh and hostile atmosphere at home, for example, the high-achiever never emerges — leaving that role open to subsequent children. This can leave the younger child scrambling for his/her proper “place”.
Supposedly, it helps us to know how our birth order and family patterns have affected us. We “carry our family” with us in our heads throughout our lives, acting and reacting in specific manners because of those early experiences. It’s really interesting to study this stuff.
I agree that we are deeply marked by our family and upbringing but I doubt birth order is of much relevance.
IMHO gender, size, parents preferences and other factors would be much more important.
In my case I am the oldest and grew up with two sisters who are just a year younger. You would think being male and older gave me some advantage but in that family my mother was the authority and had some aversion to males so my sisters always got her support while I was always trying to stay out of her way. These things are crucial. I cannot see how the order in which we were born would have made much difference except that if my sisters were older and bigger they would have abused me even more.
Penny-wise,
While Portwest mentions a few of the exceptions, the family order business does seem to play true, often enough to be very interesting.
The prediction of the olderst having the highest IQ is almost worth betting on…
But the oldest picks up a load of guilt and responsibility (even if they don’t act upon it) and the baby often stays the baby forever. I have a 50 year old aunt who is still the baby - somedays it is cuter than others but enough is enough.
Being the middle is the very best!
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
Here’s a story relating to the topic. One of my psych professors told us about it.
There was some kind of psych seminar or something for college students. One of the professors divided up the students (over 50 of them or so) into four groups:
Only children
First born
Middle born
Last born
They had each group stand around and start chatting. After around 10-15 minutes, the professor quietly dropped a piece of paper into the middle of each group. The paper had instructions on it to begin discussing a topic among the group, and formulate thoughts about the topic to share with the large group. Twenty minutes after dropping the papers, the professor asked for each group to share their thoughts. The results:
The group of only children had organized themselves and had clear answers written out, which were read aloud by a leader.
The group of first-borns were similar, but didn’t have everything on paper.
The middle children had some ideas, but were less organized and no one had wanted to be the “leader” of the discussion.
The last-borns had not noticed the prof give them the paper.
Not sure where or when it took place, but my teacher told it as a true story.
The `birth order’ theory goes in and out of fashion every couple of years, it seems. Personally, I think it’s a crock of shit, and it certainly smacks of pseudo-science.
I remember a passage in Box Man; A Professional Thief’s Journey in which Harry King talks about how psychologists would ask prisoners a lot of questions about their families, and the prisoners were wise to the fact that they were trying to co-relate criminal behavior to birth order, and they considered it a big joke.
I sure hope all of these theories are purely Nurture-Based, not Nature-Based. My son, the eldest by 17 months, is quiet, self-driven to a HIGH degree, focused and calm.
My daughter was a teenager since the moment she arrived. They are both adopted, different birth parents. I can only hope the studies rely solely on the dynamics within a family, and how birth order affects that.
Cartooniverse
If you want to kiss the sky, you’d better learn how to kneel.
I believe that research has shown birth order to have an effect on the way a person reacts to the world at large, however, it is only one of many factors, what with family dynamics and family systems, major life events, etcetera.
Not to mention that the phrase “birth order” is not as straightforward as it appears. The oldest male, for example, may be firstborn, but the oldest female may also be considered in the role of firstborn, because each is the first of their gender.
Try the book: Born to Rebel by Frank J. Sulloway. Michael Shermer of the Skeptics society is very impressed with it.
The OP fits for my brother and I and we’re twins. He was born six minutes before me but he is more of a leader and is a bit smarter than I am. I’m more of the family clown.