You know why this is true? Age of the parents. My grandmother was a 25 year old farm wife with a young healthy husband when my mother was born. She was in her 40, with a sick husband and two jobs when my youngest uncle was born. My mother was a little girl with no indoor plumbing, a one room school house and the second car was a mule or your own feet because her dad was working with the truck. When her brother was born, they lived in town and he had no farm chores. Everyone lavished attention on him because nobody wanted him to have it hard like they did. So, he grew up as charming brat who made horrible choices but was so cute the whole family bailed out over and over again.
I think it is more nurture than nature.
If ALL first born were more intelligent, then most definitely it's nature over nurture.
I've watched older kids in families, and often times those kids have a "bossy" attitude. Being a leader isn't about being the smartest, it's about attitude and drive.
The kid who is the leader in the house among his siblings (peers), will take those tendencys out into the world with them. Likewise, a child who was following, will have a tendancy to follow when they are out of the house.
This dynamic seems break down when there is an aggression between siblings. I have seen younger siblings who bucked their older siblings "authority", who later in life are as much or more so a leader than the older sibling.
Also, parents with 3 or more kids can tell you, that each of their kids, though coming from same parents, can have different personality traits. These traits can be displayed at the youngest of ages. They don't suddenly manifest themselves when a child is 2.
People are wired up a certain way in the womb, then once they are out, environment takes over.
Middle child and have certifiably tested higher on IQ, achievement test, SAT and National Merit Scholarship test than either of my sisters. However, they both did better in School than me because I’m just a little to anti-authority to do well in a typical school situation.
just a few words:
The study only shows a (weak) tendency. Something that is true 11 times out of 20 and false 9 times out of 20.
While we have known about birth-order effects for some time, the study takes advantage of the enormous amount of data on all members of family units in the national longitudinal survey, to explore the extent to which we can explain why there are birth-order effects. Is it, for example, due to having younger parents? Or, to more attention during the time a first-born is an only child?
As expected, it is found that first-borns are more engaged by parents than their siblings. They are read to more frequently, and they watch less television. These differences seem to correlate with higher achievement on standardized tests.
BOTTOM LINE: Read to your children. Bring them to church and to the ballpark. Include some enriching experiences in your vacation plans. Show some interest in their learning, their playing, their happiness. The point of the article is that this comes easier with first-borns than with their siblings.
I don’t know, but my first kid is a neuro-radiologist, and 4th just got a perfect ACT !!! It’s those two in the middle that worry me ..... and that caboose little girl who views the school day as a social outing !
Fredo would agree with the study.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A
Obviously commissioned by first-born children.
Legitimate studies show that not only does the baby of the family by comparison to their elder siblings get everything they want they are also way smarter.
I am a Mensa member compared with my older first-born sister.
Studies like this are so worthless, they are not worth writing or posting.
Oldest children receive undivided attention until their first sibling is born. Then attention is naturally divided. This should not come as any sort of revelation, the oldest born has a natural advantage.
ALPHA, LEO, first born, female, more commonsense than the other 3. Youngest is the only male, least educated and a alcoholic.
The only thing that they had to know was that I could take all four of them at one time should the occasion arise (and it did several times) ... and that certainly still applies.
As first born, I’ve always believed this to be correct.