Home > Health > MOMania > Archives > 2007 > December > 09
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Do you believe in the birth-order theories?
Do your children and friends’ children fall into the generalized categories? Do you think birth order determines a child's future?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
If you read Time Magazine’s recent cover story about the implications of birth order, you would think your second- and third-borns should just start drinking now and reserve their spots at the Union Mission.
While I am exaggerating a little bit, the story, which ran Oct. 29, did paint a grim picture for the latter-borns in a family.
Based on scientific studies and anecdotal evidence about celebrity siblings, the gist of the story is that first-borns are generally smarter, healthier, more successful academically and professionally, and even higher paid than their younger siblings.
For example, the story begins by pointing out that poor Elliott Roosevelt, President Theodore Roosevelt’s younger brother, was an alcoholic and addicted to morphine. He battled depression and died young from alcoholism.
The article implies that his problems were a result of having a successful older brother he didn’t measure up against. Wouldn’t the more obvious reason for his troubles be the chemical and biological factors that caused his depression and addictive behavior?
I’m not generally a big naysayer of medical studies, but as a second-born I am incredulous about much of the birth-order research. I think the importance of birth order and the irrevocability of its implications is a bunch of malarkey.
I do not believe that the order in which a child arrives on this planet predestines him to a certain fate or specific character traits. From what I have observed and experienced, I think children react and respond to the personalities of their siblings and parents to find their place in the family. I think they also respond to the amount and quality of attention they receive from their parents. I believe these factors are far greater in shaping our children’s personalities than the order they left the womb.
For example, the article states that based on a Norwegian study the eldest is generally three IQ points ahead of the second born and so on down - probably the result of mentoring the younger sibs.
This doesn’t resonate for me or for many of my friends’ families. I know plenty of second- and third-borns who are genetically smarter than their elder siblings. I also know plenty who just worked harder. Also, how do researcher’s account for the benefit the younger children receive from learning from their elder siblings?
A personal example: My second child is reading before my first did. He knew his alphabet and letter sounds about the same time, if not earlier, than my daughter. He’s learned this by listening to her learn to read.
Our third-born was crawling at 4 and 1/2 months (long before my other two did) and is trying to walk at 8 months (again long before the other two did). She learned this by watching her older sibling and wanting to be with them.
Both younger sibs have a much greater understanding of the world around them because of watching the elders learn and function.
The story also quoted a study from the Philippines that showed that later-born siblings tended to be shorter and weighed less than the earlier borns. While it doesn’t offer an explanation of this particular study’s results, it does point out later, as there are more mouths to feed, food resources can become scarce.
Again, I’m not seeing the eldest child necessarily being the largest in my family or with my friends’ children. (I understand we’re all getting three square meals a day and in some families they are not.) My second child was born heavier than my first. He grew at an unbelievable rate putting on a pound a week for the first eight weeks. Two years younger than his older sister, only a few pounds separate them now. Our third child also was born within ounces of her siblings (bigger than her sister, smaller than her brother) and also outpaced her older sister’s growth as an infant. It appears, at least for me, when you’ve breastfed previous babies you actually have more milk to offer the next ones. No scarcity there.
And, I am only partially buying into the old Jan-Brady-middle-child syndrome. Nine months into having three children, we are seeing our middle child needing a little more attention. But unlike the birth-order theories, I think this can happen to any child, not just the middle one.
We have been giving a lot of attention to the baby of course and to our eldest child and her homework. My son has started acting out, and I believe it’s because he needs more of our time and energy. I think that a parent can remedy this with some special time for whichever child needs it.
I think children react and respond to their siblings to find a place in the family - but I don’t think that place is set in stone. And I think observant parents can help their children find that special space without anyone having to be the “bad” or “unsuccessful” sibling.
