An article in the New York Times claims the eldest sibling has a higher IQ over her younger one. The average difference was 3 points. That might not seem like a lot, but that could be the difference between getting a B+ and a Low A. I'm not really sure if I buy all of that, but I did agree with some parts of the article. As the younger sister to a ridiculously overachieving genius sister, I've always wondered why she was so much smarter than I was. I guess that would explain it.
Does it has something to do with prenatal care or nature? I really don't think so. After I think it has more to do with nurture rather than nature. I know my sister and I were definitely treated differently growing up. My parents were a lot stricter with my sister than they were with me. That may have been because my sister paved the way, or what not. That would be something to really look into as a social anthropologist I suppose. It's something that I've always been curious about.
Some things I agree with in the article:
Some studies find that both the older and younger siblings tend to describe the firstborn as more disciplined, responsible, high-achieving. Studies suggest — and parents know from experience — that to distinguish themselves, younger siblings often develop other skills, like social charm, a good curveball, mastery of the electric bass, acting skills.That is most definitely true. I feel like I am a bit more social than my sister, I'm more creative, I'm just a little more out there than she is...but have you ever read one of her papers? She's definitely the more studious one and she's more responsible than I am (My sister saves her money, I like to spend all of my pennies!). I also like the way they compare it to a niche and the younger siblings trying to find a different way so there isn't direct competition. I wonder what that means evolutionarily.
I also think though, that siblings are more supportive of each other. I know my sister was always telling me to do whatever I wanted. And I look to her more for support and an OK than I look at my parents, so when the article states this:
[T]hat younger siblings often live more adventurous lives than their older brother or sister. They are more likely to participate in dangerous sports than eldest children, and more likely to travel to exotic places, studies find. They tend to be less conventional than firstborns, and some of the most provocative and influential figures in science spent their childhoods in the shadow of an older brother or sister (or two or three or four).I see that coming from the fact that we have this extra support. Also a support that's more in tune with you. There's no age gap, and "voice of reason" I suppose. I'll give you an example. My parents wanted me to be a lawyer. And my father hoped I would major in something a little more practical than what I decided to go into. It was my sister however that was with me on majoring in Evolutionary Anthropology. It was also my sister who was the only one that could really see that I liked what I was studying, she was also the only one in my family telling me I was good at it.
I'll probably try to read the actual article from Science and again the NY Times article in more detail and edit this so it's a little better and make some sense! But in reality what do I really know! Maybe I should look over my Social Evolution notes as well!! Along with all the bones I have to study! I'm sure it'll be a splendid night!
Posts
