Especially in college towns. I'm not endorsing strippers, I'm just trying to help these poor girls get through college. :)

Where is your data to support this?

he's conducting the research now.....will publish the results later.

lmao, i mean seriously does it really matter

Not neccessarily true.

If a couple has a daughter and a son (2 children); they are considered 1st borns or "only children". So both can be equally as smart.

Read the old book, "Family Ties that Bind". It includes Birth Order.

@ Goldhat - say your hypothesis is true. Then if we take the study's claim that younger kids try to out-do their older siblings, then that would mean the vast majority younger siblings are hookers. :)

I was going 2 reply 2 Goldhats crazy comment until i read ur's ..frikking hilarious dude. Now. i cannot top that so i replied 2 ur comment instead..,,that was funny. lol

That's funny... I always wonder about these birth order things because I have four children (three older boys, then, one girl). The youngest boy does the best on test taking and the second is close at hand, the first and last are average. I can't say if any of this is true or not because also I am the only girl with an older brother and younger brother; where do I fit in?

Thanks for a great laugh. You must be a younger born just had to out do someone.

this is too funny!!! my sis was a bit of a trollup not good in school and generally languishes in pity parties on anything she can think of, and seriously what about those of us that have mixed families?? thank God i dont live my life by these statistics!!!!!!!!!

Excuse me Im a first born and am not a stripper and many of my friends are first borns too and are some of the smartest people I know. If you dont have anything nice to say dont say anything at all

Summer says,..."I'm not sure if it's really that I'm the oldest vs. them being the middle and youngest; or other reasons - one being gender. Maybe these studies would be more accurate if they looked at birth order within gender and/or other factors?"

I agree with that...I think a combination of inborn personality, gender, birth order, and environmental influences all come together to shape a child's personality and academic success or "intelligence" (many different forms of intelligence...so not sure what they are claiming to measure here).

There are some attributes that tend to follow along birth order lines, I think...and with good reason. First borns, unless multiples, are an "only child" for at least the first year or so of their life, and are also the "experiment" without an owner's manual. Parents tend to be less confident in parenting skills and try to do things by the expert's book of rules more so with the first child...they are more organized, scheduled, rigid, or however you may want to describe it, and often more demanding or expect more responsibility from the child at an earlier age. First borns are also the center of attention in their early formative year(s), which can be an enhancement but also can become too controlled of an environment with a lot of pressure to excel, or lead to an overdeveloped self image of "self importance". Naturally following, first borns tend to be more structured or rigid, I think...maybe more focused or goal oriented, you could say, and often more responsible... probably leading to the high number of high achievers, including presidents, etc. being first borns. They may also be more obsessive/compulsive, self centered, and stressed or type A personalities, statistically, if someone did a study to see.

Depending on all the factors and the way the child processes and reacts to the first born birth order input, it can be used to their advantage, or can become a hindrance in overall happiness and quality of life, I think. The same would be true for later birth orders. Less parental/family pressure, rigidity and attention can allow for more self expression, creativity, exploration of new boundaries, etc., but it can also be taken to the point of being less motivated, difficulty following through with goals and completing projects, less focused, etc. The social and competitive factor of interacting with and "keeping up with" older siblings can lead to good social skills and greatly excelling at early ages with less fear over trying new things, or it can lead to inner turmoil over constant competitive attitude with self image shaped by achievement rather than a true self confidence that allows for defeat sometimes and joy in the achievement of others. I think it is usually a big help and positive personality shaper for a child to have a younger sibling...to teach, help, protect, etc...qualities that will help them to be a more giving and compassionate adult, and so in this area, first borns and those who come after but are not the baby, may benefit.

In other words...its COMPLICATED. Parents can help a lot, I think, by assisting each child in using all contributing factors to the best possible advantage for that particular child's inborn personality type, and helping to lessen the negative effecting factors while the child is little and learning to cope.

I'm the middle kid and the predictable slacker, but the things I'm interested in (physical fitness,martial arts, bicycling, and hot rod building/competition driving) I'm far better at than my siblings could ever be, while the common interests we share (electronics,music,history,pop culture) we're fairly equal on. The smartest of the three of us is my sister,who's the youngest by a dozen years.

Like all 'facts' there are no 100% fast rules. In my, the oldest was extremely shy. She is much more open now, has to be she's in education. Also, the one most dedicated to continuing a formal education, going onto graduate school. The middle sibling been tested with a genius IQ and though most curious about learning and reads anything and everything, was bored in school and didn't go beyong a college degree. The youngest, is a puzzlement - a stoic, more of a loner, rather defensive and loathe to forgive or apologize, but loyal and conscientous. What do they say this means???? All surveys are only as legitimate and objective as the crunchers. It's not absolute science.

You're correct, Summer1597193. Sorry I can't point to the article I read because it's been quite a few years since I read it. But it said that birth order applies within gender. In other words, even if you had an older brother, you would still have first-born characteristics if you were the oldest female.

Naturally following, first borns tend to be more structured or rigid, I think...maybe more focused or goal oriented, you could say, and often more responsible... probably leading to the high number of high achievers, including presidents, etc. being first borns. They may also be more obsessive/compulsive, self centered, and stressed or type A personalities, statistically, if someone did a study to see.

I can see that in the sibling dynamics between my brothers and I. Like I said earlier, I'm the oldest - I'm in medical school (both of my brothers have college degrees, but neither want to go further than undergrad). We're all fairly responsible - but, I have more responsibilities than they do. I am a single mother, both of them are married (one w/ kids the other w/o kids) - so, they have someone to share responsibilities with. As far as more obsessive compulsive, stressed, type A personalities - well, I do have OCD and virtually all medical students are type A personalities. My little brothers are very laid back in comparison to me.

I agree with your assessment of the differences - they can be beneficial or a hindrance. You are very right - it's complicated :)

Sorry I can't point to the article I read because it's been quite a few years since I read it. But it said that birth order applies within gender. In other words, even if you had an older brother, you would still have first-born characteristics if you were the oldest female.

I figured that would have to be true. As much as I know girls can do anything boys can do and vice versa, I also know there are some inherent differences between the genders (statistically speaking, there are always exceptions - but just overall).

I know these kinds of studies don't apply to all families perfectly, but it is pretty fun to laugh at them when they're way off in comparison to yours.

My family had 5 kids - four girls and one boy.

The first child, a girl, got bad grades her whole school career, skipped classes, had sex and started smoking, drinking, and drugs at a young age, etc. She ended up dropping out of school and having illegitimate children with multiple men (kids went to foster care), had multiple suicide attempts, and is living in a trailer park somewhere doing nothing with her life. Not the brightest bulb or most successful "first born" in the world, you could say....

The second child is pretty average. She got average grades - Bs and Cs, nothing great. Took several years to get her college degree but at least she did it. Very social.

The third child is the only boy and was the first traditionally "smart" one of the bunch. He got good grades in school but is not much of an extrovert. He ended up with a college degree in chemical engineering.

I'm the fourth child. I have a very high IQ and am a 4.0 student. I'm an introvert and definitely not social.

The fifth child has average grades, pretty crappy/average ambition, but is very social.

I'm the oldest, and I always received the best grades, and am the one with the highest education level.

However, financially, I'm at the bottom. My younger siblings may not have been the "smartest" as far as grades and education, but they have the street smarts and social skills to make the big bucks. I do have a genius level IQ (about 170) but that hasn't translated to $$$.

I'm sure I'll spend this weekend alone, watching TV/movies and reading, while my younger siblings will be out and about, socializing. (But this comparison doesn't really mean they are happier, in reality.)

But everyone is different, and that's what makes the world go round.

Fred G:

You're the negotiator and peacemaker.

My experience as a middle child. On the other side of the coin, it can be H--------------! caught in the middle.

If there are huge age differences, the youngest becomes a first or only child.

Six of one; half a dozen of the other. What I do know is this....

My folks could have saved somebody a chitload of money on this 'Study' if they had been asked about this back in the 60's! All they would have had to do is whip out me and my sibling's report cards from school. Case closed! Who's buying lunch!?

token: street smart and barely literate.

token, you are either dyselxic (although your pattern of writing does not reflect that) or you seriously should have stayed in school much much longer. Particularly, I would have recommended another 2-3 years in grammar school. While I am not usually a spelling nazi you made me shudder.

Notanidiotlikeolegunny and Hedwig - my thoughts exactly!

tokenl3roken states that he has a job! Must be flipping burgers or washing cars.

The only thing tokenl3 could have done worse in that post is maybe sprinkle in a few ebonics words.

Every one is entitled to their opinion, it is entirely more forceful when expressed in a grammatically correct manner.

And the addition of multiple exclamation points expresses an entirely more forceful emotion, wouldn't you agree?

It's all a matter of how your parents treat you. Younger siblings do have an advantage of become more alert and learning more sooner than older siblings because they are subjected to getting more attention than the first born.

If you're from a family that the first born is viewed as favorite and the second born is viewed as a spare then the second born is going to have issues as an adult.

My dad was second born and his older brother was favored. It had an affect on him but he broke the chain by treating my brother and myself the same. I was the oldest. I'm academically smarter than my brother but my brother is far more sociable than I am. I have a sister that is 16 years younger than I am and she is just smart and loveable.

Token, you have missed out on the reality of this article. Before you post comments on an article about being intelligent, learn how to use proper grammar, spacing between letters and words, etc...

"collage" "out due" "i was the first born"...

Are you not anymore? What happened?

Thanks for the laugh.

Token what you are saying is just a comparison. But not necessarily true to the article, rather this article is a very small study for statistics. You would need a much larger group to get a more accurate statistic, this one is a bit too generalized.

Take me for instance. I am the younger one of 2, we are 29 and 30 right now. My sister is 23 months older than me. She is very book smart and I am very street smart (I once had to explain to my sister what UHAUL and the nose bleed section of the ballpark meant). She is a Spanish teacher at a high school and I am an analyst for a fortune 500 company. She graduated from college and I did not.

I would like to see them study more on the behaviour and characteristics of siblings though. I was always a little more outgoing/wilder then my sister.

I bet TOKEN wrote his comment with one hand and one finger. That's why all theletters that are supposed to be in capital aren't, no punctuations, no properly composed sentences, no nothing! Not sure what he did with the other hand, though....LOL

Too much "texting".

A bunch of you creeps need to get back in line at the end and climb on the "short" bus. Rude, ill mannered and in some cases out right racism. Undoubtedly you are dumb "first borns". I was the second in line and always smarter than my brother and a couple of steps ahead of him. I also had a higher grade point average; I know my IQ was higher than his.

I think a bunch of the above comments need to be collapsed as being worthless and inflammatory.

I was the second in line and always smarter than my brother and a couple of steps ahead of him.

Colonial Girl - Then I am guessing your brother is no MENSA candidate.

Regarding collapsing comments, you are the one calling people creeps.

I couldn't help but notice, while reading through the other replies on this article, that most people were not in agreement with the stated premise regarding birth order. If it is truly a matter of statistics, I would think it would be reflected somewhat through agreement with the article, instead of opposition. Again, I think it's not all it's cracked up to be.

I think the opposition that you are noticing is due to the self selection of people responding. Not everyone who agrees with the results will be compelled to leave a comment. Also, people who understand statistics realize that their own personal anecdotes may not perfectly align to the population as a whole... and thus would also feel no need to comment with anecdotal evidence that disagrees with a statistical study.

The short of it is that your own personal situation will not disprove statistics based on a larger population.

Also, people who understand statistics realize that their own personal anecdotes may not perfectly align to the population as a whole... and thus would also feel no need to comment with anecdotal evidence that disagrees with a statistical study.

Not entirely true. I understand statistics very well. However, I still post my personal anecdote, which agrees in some ways, but disagrees in other ways. I didn't post the personal anecdote to refute the statistics - it clearly doesn't - rather because it's kind of interesting to compare my situation to the statistical data, and to see how other people compare to the statistical data.

Well, apparently the intelligence thing didn't run too deep in your family. If you knew anything about statistics, you'd know that they only apply broadly to groups, predicting trends. Statistics are not applied to individual cases.

It is like denying that, on average, men ware taller than woman because your mom was 6'2".

lol, Eric. Burn.

Yes, because comparing the findings of a study to your own observations to see if it makes sense means you're stupid. If you're smart, you just blindly believe whatever you're told!

Now surely, that can't be what you meant. ;)

I would be more interested in Carole's associates. If her group is statistically nonnormative in that fashion, I wonder what else may be unusual about them? It could also be that the study itself drew its sample in a questionable fashion, resulting in a data set that cannot be generalized to the population as a whole, one that offers a false reading of what is normative. Granted, there's no evidence for it in this particular case, but it's certainly not unheard of.

Really? How so? It's not "one child". The study looks at families and trends/averages. Statistically you can assert trends based on many different or singular criteria.

Must not be a "first born". HA! :)

Such as situations like mine where my eldest is my first child (my ex-husband had a daughter that his girlfriend at the time miscarried about half way through the pregnancy), and my youngest is my boyfriend first child. Does that mean both my kids will be smart since they were the first born for at least one parent? :P

Sorry, I could not resist and had to respond. Reread your post, ferrferr. You wrote, "...my eldest is my first child..." No, duh. Imaginary children wouldn't count, in any case and you do not mention any terminations of pregnancy on your part, so yes, your eldest is your first child! (Not sure why you felt compelled to mention a miscarriage that did not involve you personally, your biological children or their birth order.) As to whether both of your children will be smart, offhand I would say that they will very likely face an uphill struggle in that regard. Just my guess.

Let me guess..you are not a first born

The statistics are not reliable and they very seldom are.

We don't know where the sample pool was taken. Was it taken for wealthy families or trailer park families. How many people were sampled. How many people from different cultures were sampled.

So to base the information in this article as any source for measuring the likeliness of the success or your kids would be a major mistake.

I knew a family when I was a kid that had three boys all about a year a part for the first two and the third was two years younger than the second. The second was more academically inclined and adventuresome. The oldest and youngest both took up business buying and restoring homes and selling them again. The middle one went to college, went to Japan and taught English and came back and is designing web pages for companies. None of them had any kids of their own and all three are in their mid to late 40's. They have one sister and she's the only one that had any kids.

Michael Zhivago, I have a two year old daughter who is my oldest but is not my first child. She is her biological mother's second child and my husband's first born. I adopted her so my first born is my 5 month old daughter.

Not every situation is traditional. There is no need to be so critical.

Michael Zhivago, FerrFerr was saying that HER eldest child is HER firstborn, but her YOUNGEST child is firstborn to his/her FATHER. So, they're both "firstborns" to one parent, as she explains. Not sure it should be that hard to understand?

Speaking of uphill intelligence struggles....

I am my own grandpa....

Technically my eldest is my boyfriends eldest as well since he adopted her earlier this year, but biologically the youngest is obviously his firstborn. I also suppose since the eldest was the only child from my ex-husband to survive outside the womb she would be considered his firstborn. Not everything is cut and dry, and this study seemingly fails to take that into consideration.

Honestly I think that a child's intelligence level and personality are far more a result of their environment more than their birth order. A home environment that encourages learning and exploring is far more likely to create children that are eager to learn. My youngest is verbally advanced and spoke her first true sentence at 10 months. My eldest came up to me a few weeks ago showing me how to add and subtract using her fingers, and she's not even in kindergarten yet. My eldest is an extrovert and thinks that everyone is her friend. My youngest is more than happy to play alone than bother to make friends even though she's more than capable of interacting. By all accounts it should be the other way around according to the study.

Sorry to break your heart Michael, I'm not ignorant, and the only uphill battle my children will have is dealing with arrogant people like you.

What's worse is someone got $300 an hour for the study...................

What's worse is that both of you are uneducated.

$300/hour?! She is a doctoral student! Try more like $1000/month! Which, considering the hours doctoral students put in, works out to something like $2/hour.

Seriously, do you always make things up and then assert them as facts?

I agree micro-1426628... as grad students we're just trying to survive on a very thight budget, usually as a teacher or research assistant... try $940/month for 3 1/2 years!!! plus you practically have something to do 24/7.

micro & kific - Wow, you guys must be in a different area of graduate school or the country than my friends who are PhD students. I'm a medical student - we don't get stipends, we have to live entirely off loans (which is part of the reason why medical school costs so much - but that's another topic). My friends are scattered across the country working on their PhD's in Chemistry and Biology (mostly in microbiology, immunology, virology, biochemistry and organic chemistry) - their stipends are all between $2300 - 2600/month. Of course, all of them live in areas with fairly high cost of living, so it's still a very tight budget & you're absolutely right, there is something they have to do 24/7. In their areas - when the cells, or proteins, or whatever, need worked on - they need worked on. It might be 3 am, it might be 8 am, it might be noon, etc., etc.

Yeah, it would be a nice change if for once, most posters actually had a basic understanding of statistics.

bencas and Mitchell:

A bit off-topic, but you both have highlighted a subject that I think is at the root of many of the political wars in the U.S.

Many Americans are utterly terrified by numbers. I have no statistical data to support my contention that a majority of Americans are virtual basket cases when it comes to math, but consistent anecdotal evidence suggests that is the case.

Not everyone has a talent in the arithmetic/mathematics arena, but there simply must be a greater emphasis on the subject. What the hell can "educators" be thinking when they allow calculators in the second-grade?

As to politics; that's how Republicans can say we must cut the deficit by spending money we don't have. Their followers don't grasp simple arithmetic.

Like I said, a bit off-topic, but it sure goes a long way toward explaining why this country is where it is.

There are any number of factors which this study does not address. Health and age of parents at time of birth. Traumatic experiences of siblings at various ages (divorce, death, bullying, etc...) The number of years that separate siblings. Changes in residence at critical times in their life. Physical capability and appearance can also be a factor.

90 and 70 subjects is not a very broad spectrum especially when it is contained in a limited local. However, it is another way for the government to use tax dollars. Nothing new or enlightening here.

As for those of you so quick to criticize other posters, what made you so judgemental? Is it your birth order with a need to feel superior?

Ohh... you've read the study, have you?

If you have read the actual study then you are qualified to make assertions about the factors considered or left out. If you only read the article that encapsulates the results into an interesting and readable format then you don't have the right to "judge" the entire actual study and the factors which are or are not included.

"Yeah, it would be a nice change if for once, most posters actually had a basic understanding of statistics."

So true Mitchell-512733, I could toss in an environment variable or a race variable and this whole study would have a different out-come. Sounds like this study is almost relevant.

Jo, well over half of the posters on this thread say that is study is wrong simply because it doesn't fit their family. That indicates a complete lack of knowledge of statistics. Specific cases do not matter when you are talking about averages and trends and we have every right to criticize them for it.

Neither I, or bencas actually commented on the article itself, I because at the time I posted, nearly all the posts were about their specific cases and how it proved or disproved the study. It would have been nice if we could have debated the actual merits of the study but that requires people to have at least a fundamental grasp of statistics. You don't need to know mean or standard deviation, confidence levels, normal distribution, or other more technical aspects of it, but really, they need to be past the 'if it doesn't work in my case, it's completely wrong' type of thinking.

Now with that said, yes, I do agree that the population size is rather small. Given the broad conclusions, they probably should have groups of at least 200-300+ though I would like to see groups of 500 or better simply because there are so many variables as you pointed out. And the study doesn't need to specifically address those variables, it's just that the more you introduce, the larger the sample size needs to be.

However, this is just an article, and the journalist might not have understood what they were saying correctly, and since a link to the abstract or actual published study wasn't provided, it's hard to know.

Mitchell

The whole study could have a different outcome if it were a different person writing it. Regardless of where and how large the sample pool was taken it is still subjected to the person's own biases.

Mitchell; You make a good point about relating personal interpretation, but if those same people were entered into that study given only 50 & 70 were part of it, the statistics might vary somewhat.

It doesn't matter that these people made comments relating to their own families you could still comment on what you thought of this article.

I agree with you that the more variables the larger the sampling needs to be. It should also be taken over a larger spectrum of the populace. And, the author of this article may not have included what may have been presented to him/her in it's entirety.

IMO, this study is less than impressive because it is not expansive enough to be as accurate as it should be, and the article is not well written.

It's my experience that many people do personalize a study or poll because they don't have an understanding of statistics. It was nice to be able to discuss this with someone who does.

So please explain the clear differences between my identical twin brothers. One is the first-born by seven (count them) minutes. Same DNA, same environment. Both are high achievers, but the second-born is a much higher achiever than the first. They are 61 years old and no-one can tell them apart to this day that isn't around them constantly. They are very, very different and always have been. Explain that one.

If you read the article, you will see that they attribute the differences to environment, not biology. You are ranting against a problem that doesn't exist.

Mitchell-512733

Nearly 86.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot.....

Mitchell-512733, where did you get your information? I have had to do much research in the past and none of it was made up. I have looked for information and made my own surveys to get the proper data. If someone is making up the research data it is invalid and not useful to any of us. Of course, I would not use this site as a form of research for anything...

To hehehe-2194561, I didn't say that. That was No Son of a Gun not using the correct reply, he was replying to my post above regarding people's lack of knowledge about statistics. He was either just trying to be funny, or sarcastic however failed entirely since he couldn't even post on the right thread.

I actually believe statistics is a useful tool, as long as you understand it correctly.

Mitchell

Why don't people stop getting into those situations and raising terrible kids? The whole world's population would be a lot better off.

Not sure what expertise you have in Chemistry but when does a formula dilute, exactly? The formula for water: 2 hydrogen atoms to 1 oxygen atom has not changed. Ever. A chemical compound may degrade over time, the formula however does not.

Your explanation applies to making a copy of the original, i.e., the first born in this case, and then making a copy of the first copy as a person might when replicating a document on a Xerox Machine. Each succeeding copy will show a degradation in image quality from the original. That is NOT how babies are made. Speak to your parents, please.

A clone is a copy of one adult of a species. It may show degradation from the original. A clone of a clone would likely show degradation. A baby is an original 'formula' requiring 'fresh' genetic material from a male and a female donor.

I think that you will find that, number one, this is a statistical generalization that can not be strictly and literally applied to all situations and number two, that nurture and environmental factors are as much involved in the development of a child's personality and intelligence as birth order. As to your Social Darwinism comment, who decides that X number of offspring conceived by a discrete mated pair will insure the survival of a whole species and which parent has the ability to shut off the intelligence spigot, again? Sorry, but Natural Selection does not work that way either.

Concentration lectures/dilution and mixing

In reference to the use of the term "dilution" and;

i.e. the term I used "dilute(s)" and the word "chemical(ly)" are correct and applicable.

Chemistry

The easiest approach to solution mixing is usually based on the formula 12.1 where c_M and V are molar concentrations and volumes respectively of mixed solutions (indexed with digits) and the final solution (indexed with letter F). This is nothing else but the mass balance of the solute - sum on the left represents total amount of substance in the combined solutions (in moles), expression on the right reflects the fact that final solution must contain exactly the same amount of substance.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A portion of your reply asserts that; (assuming the same mating pair is being sampled), the genetic material comprising semen and ovum somehow transmutes into someone Else's genetic material, which it does not though it may suffer damage which can result in a constituent changes from the original formula. The reference "fresh" is applicable to the extent that additional sampling is applied not new material.

The outcome variable(s) to the original formula, which result in unique offspring characteristics, are subsequent combinations intended to further improve the survival of any particular mating pairs dominate successful survival characteristics.

In effect the reproduction and cloning mechanisms are separated because inception is a precursor to the formation of cloning materials such as stem cells. Correctly, there is variability of possible outcomes when using the same genetic samplings as demonstrated by the diversity of humanity comprised of the same principle chromosomal material.

This doesn't seem to provide a conclusive argument against the findings which suggest that first born of the same mating pair are smarter. Obviously, the definition of the word smarter will be contested by those whom are not "first born" offspring for emotional reasons not scientific ones.

In the case of dilution this formula simplifies;

While both formulas are correct they are sometimes of no use as they don't give a clue about how to calculate volume of the mixture. In the case of diluted solutions you may assume final volume is the sum of all volumes. However, due to the density changes and/or volume contractions final volume doesn't have to equal sum of all volumes mixed. Even density tables are of no real help, as you can't calculate exact molarity of solution without knowing its volume, you can't calculate volume without knowing density, and the density is a function of molarity that you can't calculate.

Mom, if the study is a complete waste of time (a graduate thesis is a waste of time), then your (single family) example would be even more of a waste of time ...would it not ?

Plus, statistical evaluations of data don't result in certainties, as much as the lay person wants them to be "laws" they are only results with some probability of being right. In spite of going to college, I am guessing math and statistics weren't on your schedule.

rjo120, I understand what she is saying. I am also in her position. I did take statistics and did much research on educational and language learning issues. I just wish the writter would have shown more about the research methods used but of course this is just a little blurb about the main point that someone else has recently read. How accurate do you really think the information is? Also, you are correct that the data researched does not always support the theory of the author and many times the author will mess up information or twist it to support their theory which is a problem.

It doesn't matter which one you get along with better. Each one has differing gifts to offer and you love them differently. Such is life.

Hey, glad you mentioned adoption.

I'm smarter than my two older siblings, and they don't deny it, but we're all adopted. The researchers should do a study to see if their findings apply when the kids are not genetically related. I can't prove it but I assume the majority of adopted kids were the first born to their biological mothers.

I think they can study till the cows come home, but I think that genes play the biggest part in who we are. A child is a mixture of genes from both parents and their ancestors. And every child that a couple has the dice is shaken and out comes someone different. Genes would explain how one child can remind everyone of great uncle "Joe" for example. My ex has a cousin who you would think they were brothers they are so similar. Family genes right? My adopted mother had a son before adopting me ten years later. Well she was crazy mean, and should probably not had any kids let alone adopt. My "brother" was just like her, once again genes. I grew up in the same house and am so far removed from being the type of people they were. I believe it was because of the genes I have from my natural parents not my upbringing.

BCpam, I can relate to your topic. My daughter is identical to her father while on the other hand my son is identical to me. My daughter's looks and personality are identical to her father's to a T. I do know that my daughter has her father's blood type and my son has my blood type. I believe whichever child has the same blood type receives that parent's dominant gene. Now that being said, I think first borns usually have a higher chance of higher intellegence do to the fact that the mother's stored nutrional supply before and during pregnancy is much higher during her first pregnancy and somewhat decreases there afterward. The optimal nutritional store in the mother's body is essential for the child's optimal brain development. And in other situations where the mother may have had a poorer nutritional intake or drug & alcohol intake before and during her first pregnancy may have affected the child's brain development. I know this was not mentioned in the article but I just wanted to give my insight.

BCPam, I have to agree with you 100%. My son has never met his father nor been exposed to that side of the family in any way, and yet he has so many of his father's characteristics that it's almost scary. I firmly believe that genetics plays a large part in a persons' personality.

Absolutely!

I am going to email this important medical research to my younger sisters, although they probably will not read it for a while since unlike me they all have jobs . . .

Being the best and brightest is FUN, for sure . . .

For sure! :)