Birth Order

[Charles_22]

I will start off with mentioning my mother and my dad. My mother is the youngest of a total of three sisters and four brothers. She is the only one of her immediate family surviving now. Her closest sibling was a brother five years her senior. The first-born in the family was a sister (and IMO was very bossy until the waning years of her life). She also had a mother that died at a fairly early age, while her father lived many years.

Then there is my dad, whom is a first-born of with two brothers and a sister. He also has a good deal of distance in age from his closest sibling, though I’m not sure how many years there were apart. I’m guessing at least 7. The youngest was the sister. Both parents lived to at least 65 years.

I, for my part, am a first-born with the youngest being a sister and a brother as well. There is roughly 18 months between our births.

I recall telling my mother some time ago, that first-borns are more serious than the others, simply because they faced rejection at a very early age. Thinking back on it now, I said that as if it was exclusive to the first-born, but it is not, but the cut is more severe with a first-born nonetheless. I only related to her what I know I felt at a very early age, that no longer was I getting much attention. I have always thought it was because of my next in line brother being born, but it may had happened when my youngest sister was born instead. My mother (a youngest) sort of poo-poo’ed that notion. That is my earliest childhood memory that has survived to this day, and I certainly didn’t make it up. It’s clear to me that either my mother thinks the attention level to me did not drop, or that she really doesn’t know what it is like to go through the experience so early in life that you’re not the only one that matters.

Now here is some of my present day thought. First of all, all siblings go through the process of at one time being the youngest, where usually you get the most attention, however, there is only one child that will go through the experience of being the oldest. Scripture has reference to the first-born being marked by God, and what that means I’m not entirely sure. In less spiritual terms, I see part of the “seriousness” often accompanying first-borns, is that sense of rejection early on. Oh sure, all but the youngest faced it too, but the oldest probably received from their parents the most amount of love and attention for the time they had it, therefore the boom of losing it was more severe.

I also understand that parents often place the most maturity upon the oldest and therefore the younger siblings have to deal with whatever that does to the oldest.

As far as the youngest goes, I said they did not ever face the rejection from their parents, but it’s not like they didn’t ever face the same, it’s just that they probably faced it quite a bit later in life, like maybe by their 3rd or 4th year, just through the general process of the child going through discipline of some sort. They never experienced it from the aspect of something outside of them causing this, and therefore the potential for it’s hitting them coming possibly at an exceedingly young age.

As well, the oldest at one time had the parents undivided attention, and this is also something the other siblings could never experience. I’m tempted to say that the youngest had this too, but it just isn’t true. They may had experienced the longest stretch of unbroken attention any child may receive, but they also had to suffer through having the attention to them be somewhat divided amongst the greatest amount of siblings. So here you can see a stark contrast between the youngest and the oldest. Eldest with a great deal of attention and depending on the spacing of the children, perhaps losing that very early. The youngest OTOH, not only got probably the longest stretch of primary attention, but they also probably got the least amount of quality from that attention. (continued on next post)…

 

[Charles_22]

(previous post continued)
So when a potential youngest and eldest clash, it is usually the eldest calling the youngest as not being serious enough, too light-headed etc., while the youngest jibes that the oldest is too serious and needs to get a life, etc. This, as I’m sure you know doesn’t just occur within the same family, as youngest have seemingly never understood why first-borns are as serious as they are, nor, perhaps, why the youngest is as flippant as they can often seem.

I got into this more seriously, because my mother, whom is a youngest, had made one of the common youngest-to-oldest quips, along with some other comment that really hurt me. I thought about it a while and told her my thoughts, realizing all the while, I was possibly just putting fuel in the fire of my “being too serious”.

As I see it, either position can take their position to an extreme, but also in the general way things are, neither really understands that their position made them different from the other. Each position seems to think that the other should be like themselves, when it’s really unfair, as neither can be like the other very much. To make things what you might say more difficult, the first-borns have a mark placed on them by God, which the others do not have. Whether that is something of a leadership tendency or what I don’t know.

I don’t know what exactly the youngest born goes through when they have had several siblings chip away at them for being the runt so to speak, but it certainly couldn’t had been too pleasant. But for more in my own personal case, I don’t think the younger siblings understand even across families, especially the youngest, that we first-borns can often be really hurt (or maybe that’s specifically why these sort of jabs are used) by adults telling us we’re “too serious” when there’s not a whole lot we can do about it. We didn’t ask to be first-born or to have a mark on us, and while the child often has no problem dealing with such charges, because they’re so used to it, that such a charge coming from an adult should really be curtailed on other adults, unless there’s really a real good cause for it.

What do you think?

 

[Charles_22]

My opinion is that this thread is more about philosophy than family, so I wish somebody would clarify why this was moved here. I can understand it being here, but I certainly don’t think it was out of order in the philosphy section. Unfortunately I think placing it here will garner much less of a philosophical response than I was hoping for. Thanks.

 

[TommyWommy]

(previous post continued)
So when a potential youngest and eldest clash, it is usually the eldest calling the youngest as not being serious enough, too light-headed etc., while the youngest jibes that the oldest is too serious and needs to get a life, etc. This, as I’m sure you know doesn’t just occur within the same family, as youngest have seemingly never understood why first-borns are as serious as they are, nor, perhaps, why the youngest is as flippant as they can often seem.

I got into this more seriously, because my mother, whom is a youngest, had made one of the common youngest-to-oldest quips, along with some other comment that really hurt me. I thought about it a while and told her my thoughts, realizing all the while, I was possibly just putting fuel in the fire of my “being too serious”.

As I see it, either position can take their position to an extreme, but also in the general way things are, neither really understands that their position made them different from the other. Each position seems to think that the other should be like themselves, when it’s really unfair, as neither can be like the other very much. To make things what you might say more difficult, the first-borns have a mark placed on them by God, which the others do not have. Whether that is something of a leadership tendency or what I don’t know.

I don’t know what exactly the youngest born goes through when they have had several siblings chip away at them for being the runt so to speak, but it certainly couldn’t had been too pleasant. But for more in my own personal case, I don’t think the younger siblings understand even across families, especially the youngest, that we first-borns can often be really hurt (or maybe that’s specifically why these sort of jabs are used) by adults telling us we’re “too serious” when there’s not a whole lot we can do about it. We didn’t ask to be first-born or to have a mark on us, and while the child often has no problem dealing with such charges, because they’re so used to it, that such a charge coming from an adult should really be curtailed on other adults, unless there’s really a real good cause for it.

What do you think?

There is an expression among family therapists that says, “No two children grow up under the same roof.” Meaning that parents, try as they might, cannot treat children ‘equally’ because of each child’s uniqueness.

Birth order gets a lot of attention, but it is only one factor which may or may not influence a family dynamic dramatically, or for that matter, an individual. There are many other contributing factors to consider.

I believe that in Scripture, being the firstborn had more to do with the rights of a firstborn son, than personality shaping. God knows us before we are ‘knit in our mother’s wombs.’ So, maybe He allows some folks to be born first not because it will shape them, but because it fits His plan based on who He already knows we are. I’m just speculating.

 

[Charles_22]

There is an expression among family therapists that says, “No two children grow up under the same roof.” Meaning that parents, try as they might, cannot treat children ‘equally’ because of each child’s uniqueness.

Birth order gets a lot of attention, but it is only one factor which may or may not influence a family dynamic dramatically, or for that matter, an individual. There are many other contributing factors to consider.

I believe that in Scripture, being the firstborn had more to do with the rights of a firstborn son, than personality shaping. God knows us before we are ‘knit in our mother’s wombs.’ So, maybe He allows some folks to be born first not because it will shape them, but because it fits His plan based on who He already knows we are. I’m just speculating.

Ah some good speculating. I don’t know but it seems to me that even if it’s just a matter of rights, that indeed such a thing would put a mark on the oldest.

I don’t think I have ever run into a first-born who wasn’t the most serious of the siblings. It doesn’t mean they are more moral, as indeed, first-born traits can go very sour, as you might see one beating the younger ones constantly, or insulting them by various means. In most cases, despite what the God-given mark might do, the eldest gets turned into one degree or another, the leader of the siblings by the parents, and therefore ends up having to be serious to achieve something resembling pleasing the parents in that role. I know in my late aunt’s case, it was even more profound, and she had to take over something of the mother role as well, since their mother had died early in my mother’s life.

 

[TommyWommy]

Ah some good speculating. I don’t know but it seems to me that even if it’s just a matter of rights, that indeed such a thing would put a mark on the oldest.

I don’t think I have ever run into a first-born who wasn’t the most serious of the siblings. It doesn’t mean they are more moral, as indeed, first-born traits can go very sour, as you might see one beating the younger ones constantly, or insulting them by various means. In most cases, despite what the God-given mark might do, the eldest gets turned into one degree or another, the leader of the siblings by the parents, and therefore ends up having to be serious to achieve something resembling pleasing the parents in that role. I know in my late aunt’s case, it was even more profound, and she had to take over something of the mother role as well, since their mother had died early in my mother’s life.

I do know that, statistically, it is very common for the oldest daughter in a family to be the one who takes on caregiving roles. For example, when elderly parents need caregiving, the responsibility often falls on the oldest daughter by default, even if there are many siblings.

Being the firstborn can certainly have an impact. I’m a middle child, and I do exhibit many of the ‘peacemaker’ characteristics often attributed to middle children. Birthorder can make a difference, but so can our reactions to it, as well as other choices we make with the hand we are dealt.

 

[Charles_22]

Yes, peacemaker. I had not thought of what probably makes up the majority of people, the middle children (Marcia, Marcia, Marcia). I actually think the middle children are probably more prone to fight with the youngest than the oldest child would, because the oldest may be so much older that they may more be prone to fight with real competition, and the youngest may often be too young for that. The youngest does carry the weight of launching the “too serious” missile perhaps the easiest. Since everybody is always older than them, should the elders boss them around any, then they have a lot of practice.

Actually as my siblings worked out, the middle child was the warmaker. The youngest, my sister, and I got along fairly well, and I sure didn’t bother telling her of a better way to live too much (AKA being bossy) so I never got the “too serious” spiel from her.

 

[Marycruz]

I read an interesting article about this in TIME a year or two ago:

time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1672715,00.html

In June, for example, a group of Norwegian researchers released a study showing that firstborns are generally smarter than any siblings who come along later, enjoying on average a three-point IQ advantage over the next eldest—probably a result of the intellectual boost that comes from mentoring younger siblings and helping them in day-to-day tasks. The second child, in turn, is a point ahead of the third.

Younger siblings are less likely to be vaccinated than older ones, with last-borns getting immunized sometimes at only half the rate of firstborns. Eldest siblings are also disproportionately represented in high-paying professions. Younger siblings, by contrast, are looser cannons, less educated and less strapping, perhaps, but statistically likelier to live the exhilarating life of an artist or a comedian, an adventurer, entrepreneur, GI or firefighter. And middle children? Well, they can be a puzzle—even to researchers.

There are few extended clans that can’t point to the firstborn, with the heir-apparent bearing, who makes the best grades, keeps the other kids in line and, when Mom and Dad grow old, winds up as caretaker and executor too. There are few that can’t point to the lost-in-the-thickets middle-born or the wild-child last-born.

 

[Charles_22]

I read an interesting article about this in TIME a year or two ago:

time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1672715,00.html

Yes, I bet the burial thing with my parents will be left to me, but if my brother goes through with his so-called wedding and they stay in the area, that gauntlet may well pass to that divorcee wife of his. She seems to be one of those real helpful types too, so it wouldn’t be the least bit surprising.

It is true as well, that I have, or had the higher paying job of the siblings. I’m not sure at all about a higher IQ though, as mine can’t be too terribly high. I never really had to take care of my siblings very much either, as my Mom was a housewife, but I was the one they seemed to trust the most. It does make a good bit of sense, though I wouldn’t think it should always be that way, that somebody with more time spent in the world, would come off better in charge than the youngers, if for no other reason than since the children are all growing up at that time in a very similar environment, then it would seem somebody with the age advantage certainly couldn’t be the worst choice anyway. It is only if one of the children had spent an extended amount of time apart from the others somewhere that you would think this might trump the age advantage, because they may had matured more in an different environment.

 

[kristleful]

Hey, Charles 22, have you read the book The Firstborn Advantage? If you haven’t, I highly recommend it. I am a first-born as well, and that book explained so much about me… It really shows what a blessing it is to be a first-born, but also gives really good advice on dealing with certain negative tendencies we have.

 

[Charles_22]

Hey, Charles 22, have you read the book The Firstborn Advantage? If you haven’t, I highly recommend it. I am a first-born as well, and that book explained so much about me… It really shows what a blessing it is to be a first-born, but also gives really good advice on dealing with certain negative tendencies we have.

No, I have never read a book on it, except if reading this thread’s Time article counts. I will have to think about that book.