BellaOnline Forums Family Siblings Birth Order...

I am one of seven children and our birth order has a lot to do with our personalities, I think. I am right in the middle, two older brother, one older sister, two younger brothers, one younger sister. Does anyone else recognize birth order personalities in their family? I read a book on it years ago, but cannot remember the distinct characteristics of each child (ie: oldest, second, middle..etc.)

Yes definitely I know many first borns and we all have certain characteristics. It very much makes sense that if you are always the "oldest child" and always being told to watch after your sibling, to keep an eye on her, to be the mature one, to take care of things that it affects your personality.

Wow! It always amazes me when people come from large families. My mother came from a large family but I grew up an only child. THe dynamics of siblings has always interested me.

If I remember correctly: the oldest child, if a son, is usually the seeker, curious, venturesome type. The oldest daughter is the nurturer and helper. The middle child, boy or girl, is the mediator. The youngest child, boy or girl, is the baby until adulthood then turns into the leader and decision maker type. This seems to be true in our family. In our family, the ones in between provide that good balance we all need.

Here's the Wikipedia page on birth order -

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Well, the part about 'gay' is not true in our family. Also, the oldest son, although adventursome and curious, was not the most intelligent, smart in many ways and very talented, but, it is the youngest son, who is the 6th of 7, who is the smartest. You can bring up any subject or issue with him and he can converse intelligently about it. He is also the most creative, I think. Thanks for the link, Lisa. I am going to read up on that.

I think the oldest is the overachiever and the middle child is more independent and the youngest can be more of a risk taker. Of course, there are always exceptions. I hadn't heard of the gay thing though - I'll let my youngest brother know!

LOL they weren't saying that the younger brother IS gay They are just saying the chances are slightly higher. I'm sure there are a fair amount of not-the-smartest oldest children too

What's funny is that some of this seems true even with very close-in-age kids. My niece and nephews are triplets and somehow the eldest of the three ends up taking care of the other two because he was always called the eldest and he sort of took on that responsibility as a result.

I am the oldest of five - girl/boy/girl/girl/girl with 16 years between myself and the youngest - who get away with EVERYTHING.

I am the smartest LOL, my brother is gay, the second to youngest is the most responsible, the youngest the least (in some aspects but just turned 20 so needs some time) and the middle is a combination - though she is the only one married with children.

We have a lot in common and A LOT more not in common though overall we all get along.

I am the youngest and it shows. I am a rebel to the core. :P

Moe,
I too am an only child, and I've always been interested in this stuff. I was raised by two middle children and I'm married to a middle as well. The middle child description is spot on for all three of them. I think onlys and middles are a pretty good match.

Lisa,
The triplet dynamics is fascinating. I guess it's also self-fulfilling to re-enforce the birth order "role" even when the age gap is only minutes.

Phyllis,
Years ago I read a book on this too. IIRC, it was called The Birth Order Book, but I don't remember the author's name. It was very interesting book and most everything in it seemed to be true for the people I knew.

I am the eldest. I have a younger sister, who is 14 months younger and a brother who is 10 years younger.
I do take more responsibility, but I am learning to let go!

I use to take on a lot more responsibility and times I still do but I have passed the torch on the the more responsible one! Not that I am not responsible but need a break once in awhile.

There are many days when all of my siblings will call to talk, complain, ask advice, etc. - got to the point my fiance asked if I was there mother...LOL

Guess it is part of being the big sister!

There is a huge age difference between my sisters and I. My eldest sister is 18 years older than me and my sister closest in age is 13 years older than me. Sometimes I feel like an only children, then I am reminded that I am not only child and also that I'm the baby of the family because my sisters love to treat me like I'm still 5. lol Quite annoying.

My siblings do treat the youngest like a baby (so do my parents at times). I have to keep reminding them that she is 20, and though an adult, still learning and, quite frankly, acting like a normal 20 year old. They have a hard time accepting that she can date who she wants, pick her own career and make her own decisions - whether good or bad.

Many times I have to remind the other what they were like at 20 - that always goes over well!

lol I'm sure it does, Allison!

I'd like to think I'm a "normal" 23-year-old yet, for my last birthday, one of my sisters gave me a stuffed cat as a gift. Trying not to sound ingrateful, I smiled and thanked her for it. But, all along, I was wondering who buys their 23-year-old sister a stuffed cat for her birthday. lol It was a bit embarrassing.

With three or more children it is easy to see the typical "birth order" patterns. I had just two children, my son is the oldest and my daughter six years younger. I do not see the pattern in them because one is male and one female. They both are very intelligent, independant and creative. They switch back and forth on being the nurturing one or the mentor.

I am the oldest child of three and I think that since I was the oldest, I grew up with alot of pressure to set a good example and watch my brother and sister.

I also read the Birth Order Book by Kevin Leman and the way he described the oldest child personality fit me to a tee.

This is really interesting to hear from others about 'Birth Order' and how it has affected lives and roles. It looks like large families do, indeed, have specific roles each child has inherited due to their place in the family. In families of royalty, the eldest is often the one who is expected to inherit the family title or kingdom and the second and each child after that receives less. I wonder, is that really fair? What if the eldest is not the best one to inherit the family wealth or title? How then is that handled?

I am the oldest of 3 girls I tend to be the caretaker. my middle sister is the smart intelligent one & my youngest one has quite a few health issues & since my mom is gone my sister tends to think of me as the mother figure,

Right Phyllis I read a lot of medieval books and the eldest son would instantly get the title, the lands, everything. The second son would often settle for being a clergyman. What if the first son was a wastrel? In fact in Jane Austen's Mansfield Park that is the very situation. The eldest son is gambling away the family money. The second son has to go into the clergy. It probably really affects their personality right from birth if they grow up the entire time knowing that "Oh I'm the eldest I get everything" or "I'm only the second child, I'm stuck with doing xxxxx".

We have it MUCH nicer in modern times.

That makes a lot of sense, Lisa. If one has a predetermined role cut out for them, they may not strive to reach their full potential in life. I bet this has happened so often, not only in the past, but in today's societies as well.

Ok here's a twist for the birth order theory that researchers have been looking into - IQ and family size. The larger the family, the lower the IQ. anybody heard of this?

Am I allowed to put my ten cents worth in and throw a spanner (wrench) in the works?
Most of the "birth order" information that is available is generally anecdotal and not really grounded in psychological or medical science.
When I was a Principal for a private school a few years ago, my board asked me to research this topic in case we could use the information re. the students. Sadly, most of the scientific data opposes the popular viewpoint---rather education and training have more influence.
Also, the new info. re IQ and the more children the less smart they are??????? I come from a very large family---there were nine kids. I have several Bachelor Degrees, Masters and a Double Doctorate --all earned, and yet some of my brothers and sisters have much more!!! Yes my mom and dad were "ordinary working folk". I think our success depends more on the drive and encouragement we get from parents and teachers than anything else.

Hey, you're preaching to the choir on that one -family size and IQ. Other researchers also dismissed it but it keeps resurfacing.

The research I find is that the eldest child tends to have a higher IQ, and the theory is that the parents were spending one-on-one time with this first child. And also that the new child being new and all, that they were really excited about it and focused on it.

But by the time #2 and #3 and #4 come along, the parents are now multitasking and also getting more relaxed about it all. So for example in most families, there are tons of photos of the first child, but less of subsequent children.

So I really do believe the first born theory - it makes a lot of sense -

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

I understand the first born theory- even as far as the birth order personality because the parental and sibling influences are usually consistent across families. Their cognitive process is improved out of necessity. But I'm not sure I buy that siblings in smaller families have higher IQs than the siblings in larger families. There are just too many exceptions and generalizations which is why some researchers have come up with information to debunk the theory.
Of course, I have to say this since I'm from a large family. When I look at myself, I know that theory is wrong but when I look at my younger brother...well...they may have a point

Well 240,000 is a rather large sample

They're not saying "all kids in a large family suffer". They're saying kid #2 on average is just slightly less encouraged than kid #1 to reach his or her full potential. And that kid #3 has slightly less again.

So in that sense, families that stop at 2 kids don't end up with kid #3 who is at a slight disadvantage compared with the other 2 kids. It's not that the entire family of a large family is tainted by the size

And again we're only talking 2 points. Heck, if a family fed their kids junk food during their entire childhood I'm sure they could knock off far more than 2 points from a kid's brain. So a large family who was focused on education and eating right and so on could still end up much higher towards their maximum potential per kid than a family with just one kid who lived in a house full of mercury and ate bad food ... it's all about potential

Tony, thanks for bringing up some good points. I am amazed at all the research that has been done on this 'birth order' theory. I did not realize it was such a widely discussed subject, worldwide.