Good grief! As if sibling rivalry weren't enough!

United States
June 25, 2007 2:41pm CST
Did you hear that study that suggests men born or raised as the eldest son have higher IQ levels than their younger male siblings? Of course they offered some bogus explanation which made no sense at all. But, if you asked me, it's the same old trick that people have been using on kids for ages. And, it's called favoritism. Way back when, psychologists ran a study whereby they told a group of teachers that several children in their classroom had higher IQ than the rest of the kids, and wouldn't you know it, the teachers paid more attention to the "smart" kids and gave them special favors and priveleges. Subsequently, the smart kids (or so everyone thought) did better on tests! And, guess what, it was all a lie. Everyone in class had roughly the same IQ level. Turns out that the kids only performed better because more was expected of them. Hey that sounds about the way my big brother was treated. Everyone just assumed he was smarter than me and baby brother, so he got the best deals. I can't begrudge him though. He was an amazing person. Do you think that maybe a more reasonable explanation for a first born males higher IQ would relate to parental expectation and educational opportunity afforded to them, more so than actual birth order? Just a thought. Weigh in on this issue with your opinion. Do you find that your older brother is smarter? And, why didn't the study include female first borns in the study?
1 person likes this
4 responses
• United States
25 Jun 07
I don't know about that study all I can do is go by my expierace. My children are really shy and don't speak to a lot of people and they don't really participate in class discussions much. The school decided to give them an evaluation. An I.Q. test was part of that, most of them had average I.Q. except my youngest son and daughter, they are consided gifted. My youngest son had the highest score than the other. So much for the study you read.
@tinamwhite (3255)
• United States
26 Jun 07
That was my question...being the eldest daughter...I want to know why we were left out of this biased "study".... I truly believe that the more that is expected from a child combined with the opportunity to fulfill it will not let anybody down....it just makes sense to me....
• United States
28 Jun 07
My first born (and only child) is a girl, so I was slightly offended that they didn't bother to include females into their study. Can you imagine! I thought we'd moved beyond that. Any study done with just males is bound to be a little biased anyway. What were they thinking, right?
1 person likes this
• United States
1 Jul 07
I really do not see how they expect to have a true picture without including females...did we slip back into the stone ages and someone forgot to tell me??? LOL Thanks for the best response....
@shemah (841)
• Malaysia
28 Jun 07
Hmm.. that's more than a little biased that they didn't include female first borns in the study. However, in my family, males are the first borns. The eldest among us all is a boy.. and I think he's really smart. But i think each of us are really smart too. *laughs* There's five of us.. and all of us are told that we inherited the smart genes from both mom and dad. We're a smart bunch of kids, growing up. haha. The only thing that precedes over our IQ level is whether we make use of what was given to us. One of my brother is really smart but really lazy at the same time. So, some people tend to think that my eldest brother is the smarter one.. but i don't think so. I don't believe in this study.. :|
@judyt00 (3504)
• Canada
25 Jun 07
I think perhaps that the first borns of either gender get more attention from day one, and don't have to shear their parents with anyone else, is the reason they appear smarter. they simply are taught from the minute they are born, whereas, siblings have to share parents with these first born kids and don't get undivided attention like their older sibs did.