The “burnt pancake” theory is essentially that the first pancake/kid you make is going to be a little bit messed up because you’re still dialing in all the variables and that subsequent kids end up less messed up because you’ve learnt from all the parenting mistakes of the first kid.
For people who grew up with/had multiple children, do you feel like there’s validity to this theory? Did the first borns in the family have it noticeably tougher and did it leave them more messed up later in life?
The ‘middle pancake’ theory would have the first one a little off, the second pancake totally screwed up, and the parents don’t care anymore how the third pancake turns out, yet it will be better than the other two.
Anyway, your theory makes sense for parents who are good enough to learn from their mistakes. Wish I had that kind.
Firstborns, second children and so forth do tend to have formative experiences which differ slightly in a way that correlates to their placement in the family. But SFAIK there’s no evidence that this is associated with more or less succesful/healthy adults. Even if parents do adjust in light of their experiences with the firstborn, there’s no reason to assume the adjustment results in closer-to-optimal parenting; it could be overcompensation. Or it could be that with each child the parents pay particular attention to the issues presented by the preceding child, and if those also turn out to be issues for this child that’s pure coincidence.
The truth is that the difference is probably felt mainly by the parents, not the child. Raising successive children may not become any easier, but it may become less stressful.
I grew up with alot of sibs. We’re all messed up a bit.
My own kids were raised pretty much even handedly, I think. They might say different. The older 2 think the lil’wrekker had it made. But I think she was just easy. I definitely had less stress with her. She is spoiled. But she’s so sweet about it. I can’t help but spoil her. So do her sibs and Dad. It’s a good thing she’s not a criminal or something. We’d be in big trouble.
Not at all, maybe the opposite. As my firstborn son once said when his younger brother screwed up, “Hey, I was the practice kid? You’d never guess.”
Maybe parents follow the book more with the first one? And by the last one they are like, “Whatever.”
Raising children isn’t like making pancakes. As UDS says, if each of your kids happens to be very similar to the preceding one(s), then what finally worked for one will work for the next; thing is, if your children are a pancake, a sponge cake and a muffin, baking them all the same way is not going to work.
I’m from a large (7 kid) family, and the father of 2 daughters, and I think this theory’s crap in all important respects, because kids have unique personalities. The theory only holds in the most trivial aspects - e.g. physical stuff - being easier second time around because you have experience with stuff. But not formative interactions, nope.
there’s a series of luvs diaper commercials where it shows the first kid being treated like its fine rare china with expensive diapers ect and then it shows the same parent handing the second kid off like a piece of meat ……
with the tag "the second time you get real " meaning you realize they don’t need expensive stuff the normal cheap stuff will be fine (there selling diapers after all)
but I’ve seen parents having a 2nd or 3rd kid say "I’m doing things differently with this one " and they do for a year or so and then there’s not much difference once the newness wears off and they go back to normal life …
I’ve seen the opposite, where in my mother’s family, the oldest, the first born and a boy at that, was given all the love and attention while all five younger sisters had to fight over the tiny scraps of love and attention which weren’t showered in the golden child.
That said, there are a couple of complementary theories about about child raising which go again this so called theory.
One is the “good enough parent” which says that if children have secure attachment to the primary caregiver (the attachment theory) then the parent doesn’t have to get everything right. They don’t even have to get the vast majority right.
The children develop resilience through the attachment to their parent(s). These little things which the OP is called a “burnt pancake” really doesn’t matter in the long run.
For parents who are not meeting the emotional needs of their children, well that’s a different story. There are emotionally unavailable people, alcoholics, addictions, those with mental disorders, abusive people, etc.
They are not providing “good enough parenting” and the children get screwed up. That happened in my family and with many relatives.
It may be possible that a parent who is not “good enough” with the first child sees the errors of their way and becomes better for subsequent children. But that doesn’t seem to happen that often.
In summary, OP, while your theory sounds good, and may have a few minor points of validity on the surface, it is waaay to simplistic.
Did I apply things learned raising two sons who are now in their mid twenties to my 13 yr old Fosterling Who Lives With His Mom and my 10 year old Guestling Who Does Not Live With His mom? Yep, but man, very little, there are just to many differences all the way around.
I have two kids. My daughter (firstborn) is a perfect pancake. My son, a burnt waffle. They’re my two favorite people on earth, but they totally torpedo the OP “theory”.
I believe there are differences, but all have advantages and disadvantages. 1st kid is the center of attention like no other, till that is shattered by the second kid. The second kid never knew this as attention was always split, later kids are more and more put on autopilot however have siblings to deal with and also to fill in some of the gaps.
Ditto. I just keeping adding syrup, hoping it’ll all work out.
I think the reverse actually. The first born gets the undivided/unshared attention of both parents until child 2 is born. No other child in the family will enjoy that advantage. If that firstborn is also first grandchild, the effect is multiplied. All of which can and does contribute to why firstborns are often the top achievers amongst the siblings.
The OP would seem to be more about shitty parents, who screw it up, till they finally get it right after a couple of failed attempts. That’s NOT a norm in my book.
There’s a “sticky situation” joke to be made, but it’s too damn early.
I always liked Erma Bombeck’s comments about pictures of children (paraphrasing): The first child gets a scrapbook with the pictures neatly arranged and labeled. The second child has some pictures in a shoebox somewhere. You don’t even bother taking pictures of the third child as they more or less look like the first child.
As for the theory, I agree with Nava - you’re not perfecting a pancake recipe, you’re making a pancake and a muffin and a sponge cake.
This is it. My two kids are very different. They both turned out great, but one is nervous about being on open water and the other just came back from camping in Africa.
What you do learn is that you are unlikely to break the kid, so you’re more relaxed for the second one. (And also still busy with the first one.) But that’s about it.
This. I have two girls. Every.single teacher who has had both of them start off almost every conversation with, “Wow, your girls are different. I mean they’re both great but so different”.
Their differences were apparent as newborns - the older one was extremely social while the younger one just wanted to do her own thing. Most of the things that worked for the first do not work for the second and vice versa. They are unique individuals with their own strengths and weaknesses.
I have to second what **Nava **said. Applying what worked or didn’t work on the 1st child, on the 2nd, is potentially going to backfire if the 2nd child is different or the opposite of the 1st child in many ways.
It reminds me of the folk story of the man who was told, “You should tow (such-and-such a thing) on a rope behind you,” and he “follows the advice” next time by…dragging a large ham in the mud behind him on a rope, which gets the ham all dirty. Then when told, “You should have carried the ham on your shoulders” he then “follows the advice” the next time by…trying to carry a cow (or some large animal, I can’t remember,) on his shoulders.
For me, the burnt pancake theory proved true but only with my expectations of my kids as babies, not the kids themselves. With the first kid, I was kind of a bundle of neuroses that spent way too much time reading baby books and way too little time just enjoying my kid. By the time my second came along, I was better prepared for what to expect, had a clearer idea of when to freak out and when not to and really had less energy to lose my shit over unimportant things.
Everything else, though…the two of them have ALWAYS been like night and day. Some of that is undoubtedly nurture, but a lot of it may well be nature. I just hope we haven’t screwed them up too badly. Guess we’ll find out in 30 or so years.