Considering Birth Order

Beckett-to-be will be our oldest child.  Even if we never have a 2nd, he'll be the oldest.  But if Karla and I and fate and biology have anything to say about it, in a few years we'll try to have a 2nd child, too.

So, as an only-child (although I am quite blessed to have 2 half-siblings that are key parts of my life), I am fascinated by birth order and how it impacts families and individual development.

But, if you listen to Slate magazine, you might find out its not as big a deal as you thought:

Despite the claims of birth-order believers, the relationship between birth order and intelligence is, in the words of one respected researcher, a "methodological illusion."

Agree?

Comments

[Graham Wegner]

Christian, IMHO, order is only relevant if parents decide that it goes that way. Some cultures value the oldest or the youngest, or it's all irrelevant unless it's a boy. Oldest kids someimes have responsibilities given to them but sometimes they are more protected as their parents constantly second guess how much cottton wool to wrap around them. My wife's obstetrician put it this way when our oldest was born, referring to dummies (pacifiers in US talk) saying that for the oldest kid, we (as parents) sterilise it and have a supply of pre-sterilised dummies in reserve should it fall on the ground, for the second kid the dummy get washed under the tap and given back, the third might get a wipe with whatever's handy and with the fourth child, the dog licks it clean if it's lucky! His point was that parents become more relaxed as the family grows and how you are treated growing up will determine the relationship you have with your parents as an adult. Sorry to ramble, but you did ask.