06.24.2010
I often contemplate birth order and have, in the past, read about it in psychology books and stuff. For the most part, I agree with what doctors and researchers say, such as the firstborns tend to be more methodical, careful, and thoughtful (I’m a first born, though I was a single child for 7 years). Sometimes I wonder how much of these characteristics are innate and how much of it is because that’s how (a) parent(s) treat the firstborn.
For example, all parents that I’ve talked to say they completely freak out with every single boo-boo, fall, stumble, cough, odd poop, cry, etc. with the firstborn. By the time the second one rolls around, as long as the child isn’t bleeding, he/she can do anything. The firstborns lay the track and test out the parents’ skills in order for any child born into the family afterwards to have it easy breezy.
How unfair is this? My whole life I thought it’s been unfair, but then…I’m biased.
I was talking to someone today about this very thing and I was told that it is for this reason (the fact that 2nd and 3rd, etc. children that are born) tend to be find more success in their life than the firstborn. Because the older child will constantly err on the side of caution, it is the other siblings that learn from an early age to take risks because the parents let them. That's not to say firstborns can't find success - if you ask me, it is the firstborns that can be hellbent on success by working harder and longer because we're determined to prove ourselves.
But...in order to achieve success, a certain amount of risk does need to be taken. Rob and I are both firstborns and both have difficulty in taking risks. We both have trouble experiencing new things and we think everything through until the issue has no life in it anymore. This is actually quite a downside in our relationship. It poses a huge risk for things to remain stagnant.
So really….how much is it innate and how much is it because our parent(s) treated us in a certain kind of way? This is one more reason why I'm scared to have kids. Will I find myself treating my child differently because he/she is the firstborn and I will expect more out of him/her because he/she is “older?” And will I treat the younger child(ren) differently because, well, they’re the “baby” and need more help? Whatever the case may be, I think each child is different with a different set of strengths and weaknesses and that’s what should dictate whether or not a child can or can’t do something.
I find your viewpoint on this to be very interesting, because it runs counter to everything I learned in college soc & psych classes about birth order. Here's a good summary of some academic research on the matter:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.indiana.edu/~intell/birthOrder.shtml
From my own experience as being a first-born, I always thought my little brother had an easier time with things. Because I came first, I was always having to figure things out on my own. He could just watch me. Big adjustments like "what will junior high be like?" seemed so much easier for my friends with older siblings, who had been to the school to visit, knew about having lockers, changing schedules, etc. I had to figure everything out on my own.
Then when it was my brother's turn, he'd just ask me. He's still asking me for advice about things I do first. A few years ago we sat down and I taught him about 401k investments. My point is, it does foster a sense of independance if there is not an older peer you can just ask, so I supposed it "builds character".
BTW, there are more first-born Nobel Prize winners than any other place in the birth order! ;)