My good friend Andy sent me this article link. I have to agree with it because I am the first-born child...my daughter would agree if she understood what it was saying, but my younger brother and sister may not agree with it. What do you think?
Quote from the above article:
A number of studies have suggested that IQ scores decline with birth order. In the most recent study, at Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, researchers looked at men and women whose IQ had been tested at the ages of 5, 12, and 18.
The results, which show a trend for the oldest to score better than the youngest in each test, confirm the findings of a study at the University of Oslo, involving about 200,000 people. That showed that first-borns had a three-point IQ advantage over the second-born, who was a point ahead of the next in line.
The theory which enjoys the most support is that the extra time and patience that the earlier borns get from their parents, compared with those arriving later, gives them an advantage.
4 comments:
I'd agree. I'm the first born. Although, I come from a broken home...with a broken past. It would be interesting to see some substantive results pairing the IQs of children from broken families with those of kids from non-broken homes. An interesting read...
Brook Sarver
www.two10eleven.com
I would tend to disagree. ahem. Mom worked after you were born, she stopped working once the twinsies came along...meaning the twins may have gotten more time and patience from Mom. Just saying. :)
Touché sister, Touché...
I read this article when it first came out. I totally agree with it. I even used it as an example in one of my messages.
The study does show however, that it tends to work in pairs. For example, if there are 3 kids it throws off the statistic. It also depends on how far apart the kids are. It even states that if there are 4 kids the cycle has the potential to start over with the 3rd kid.
Very interesting... Probably more so to me because of my worthless degree in Sociology. Stupid, stupid, stupid! ;)
Post a Comment