Birth order

[presonorek]

Is there any connection between personalities of people who are first born, second born, third born etc. ?

It is my personal observation that the first born child is more serious, more organized, healthier, less adaptable, less confident, more outspoken and usually unhappy overall.

This is probably due to the first born child receiving undivided attention for a minimum of the first 9 months of his/her life. This means the child receives an overabundance of attention and protection which gives the child a foundation of an unbalanced sense of self importance. Even when other children come into the picture the oldest child is bigger, smarter and has sustained clout with the parents. The oldest child has more control of his/her environment which doesn't translate well into adulthood. The oldest child appears to be more likely to abuse drugs, take risks, experience depression and/or be unsuccessful in his/her career. This does not go without benefits. The person is usually more organized, more outspoken, more honest and more trustworthy. This makes the first born a good candidate for successful personal relationships.

It is my personal observation that the second born child has a strong sense of humor, a competitive spirit, a craftier approach to human relations and is more adaptable to their environment. The second born child has felt compared to his/her older sibling since a very early age. This environment creates a need for creativity and humor to protect himself/herself from ridicule or violence from the older sibling. This competitive spirit and resistance to power struggles makes the second born a success in the work place. He is able to avoid the sabotage of stronger co-workers and his/her competitiveness makes the second born compelled to prove himself/herself constantly. They are inclined to be on top of things at all times. This is not without drawbacks. The second born's competitive nature makes him a poor companion or friend. The second born is on the offensive protecting himself/herself from being outwitted by the spouse or friend. Even though he/she has an abundance of friends due to his success and great sense of humor the second born rarely enjoys a close friendship.

The third, fourth and subsequent births are born at the bottom. These children tend to be quiet, calm and determined to survive at all cost. These children are also well groomed to be good employees but they lack the ambition to seek promotions or a higher position. In relationships the third born (and so on) are more accommodating and peaceful. All around the third born (and so on) make a more balanced person and are a lot more able to accept his/her circumstances in life.

Where do you fit in this discussion?

I have found that these tendencies aren't strong enough to develop a stereotype, a generality or a fireproof way to analyze a person but I do hope that it makes for an interesting discussion.

The votes in this poll are not public.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think your negatives of the firstborn are accurate. At least they don't "feel" right. I'd say the firstborn has more responsibility put on as the "example" to the younger siblings, and more pressure to blaze the trail for the litter where no child has gone yet. They also get more perks and less competition.

I agree with the competitive dynamic put on the Middles (which is where I am even though I voted 'rutabaga'). But then you completely left out the youngest child, who with no underlings has to learn to be the psychologist, finding ways other than straight competition to 'survive'. This is I think where the humorist comes in, because it's the equalizer the youngest can use, having been denied a place in the physical hierarchy. Finding a humor angle levels the playing field so to speak, and they tend to look for that angle constantly. Stephen Colbert for example is a youngest.

 

[presonorek]

I don't think your negatives of the firstborn are accurate. At least they don't "feel" right. I'd say the firstborn has more responsibility put on as the "example" to the younger siblings, and more pressure to blaze the trail for the litter where no child has gone yet. They also get more perks and less competition.

I agree with the competitive dynamic put on the Middles (which is where I am even though I voted 'rutabaga'). But then you completely left out the youngest child, who with no underlings has to learn to be the psychologist, finding ways other than straight competition to 'survive'. This is I think where the humorist comes in, because it's the equalizer the youngest can use, having been denied a place in the physical hierarchy. Finding a humor angle levels the playing field so to speak, and they tend to look for that angle constantly. Stephen Colbert for example is a youngest.

I know it is not an exact science. It is just something that has made me curious. When I was a kid I always heard that the youngest child was spoiled and the middle child is always ignored. I do agree that the middle child is often ignored but I don't think the youngest child is spoiled. When I was in the Marine Corps we had a lot of time to have worthless conversations. I thought it was fun to guess which person was a first born, second born, youngest child etc. Sometimes I was right. Sometimes I was wrong. My incorrect assessments didn't discourage my curiosity. I'm usually better at identifying an oldest child. That's where I fit into the picture.

Do you at least agree that the first born does tend to take things way too seriously?

 

[Pogo]

I don't think your negatives of the firstborn are accurate. At least they don't "feel" right. I'd say the firstborn has more responsibility put on as the "example" to the younger siblings, and more pressure to blaze the trail for the litter where no child has gone yet. They also get more perks and less competition.

I agree with the competitive dynamic put on the Middles (which is where I am even though I voted 'rutabaga'). But then you completely left out the youngest child, who with no underlings has to learn to be the psychologist, finding ways other than straight competition to 'survive'. This is I think where the humorist comes in, because it's the equalizer the youngest can use, having been denied a place in the physical hierarchy. Finding a humor angle levels the playing field so to speak, and they tend to look for that angle constantly. Stephen Colbert for example is a youngest.

I know it is not an exact science. It is just something that has made me curious. When I was a kid I always heard that the youngest child was spoiled and the middle child is always ignored. I do agree that the middle child is often ignored but I don't think the youngest child is spoiled. When I was in the Marine Corps we had a lot of time to have worthless conversations. I thought it was fun to guess which person was a first born, second born, youngest child etc. Sometimes I was right. Sometimes I was wrong. My incorrect assessments didn't discourage my curiosity. I'm usually better at identifying an oldest child. That's where I fit into the picture.

I don't know about "spoiled", I guess sometimes, but it's hard to make a case for the oldest being "ignored" when first they're the only game in town, and once siblings are born become the role model. Neither of those really translate to "ignored".

I did hear that my older brother, probably before I was born, had an imaginary playmate. Not sure if that's relevant. I looked up a great deal to him, still do, and he's probably taught me more about life than any other person.

 

[presonorek]

I don't know about "spoiled", I guess sometimes, but it's hard to make a case for the oldest being "ignored" when first they're the only game in town, and once siblings are born become the role model. Neither of those really translate to "ignored".

I did hear that my older brother, probably before I was born, had an imaginary playmate. Not sure if that's relevant. I looked up a great deal to him, still do, and he's probably taught me more about life than any other person.

I'm the oldest. My mom and I are really good friends. She gets along with me more so than any of my younger siblings. That is a funny joke among us now that we are adults but as children that is a huge advantage. The only disadvantage was that I was held to a higher standard. One lie to my mother had the potential to demolish that alliance. I couldn't lie my way out of getting into trouble. I had to confess to all of my crimes. I'm sure my siblings were aware of the alliance I had with my mother from a very young age. I'm not sure if my family dynamic is the best to see these differences. My brother is 15 months younger than me and my youngest sister is 24 months younger than him. We were all about the same age.

 

[presonorek]

Due to my theory of the outspoken tendencies of the first born I am anticipating more people voting Option 1 or Option 2.

Younger siblings learned at an early age that nobody cares what they think. The oldest child never learns this lesson and has an overinflated sense of self-importance.

A first born is most likely to be caught wasting time on a message board.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know about "spoiled", I guess sometimes, but it's hard to make a case for the oldest being "ignored" when first they're the only game in town, and once siblings are born become the role model. Neither of those really translate to "ignored".

I did hear that my older brother, probably before I was born, had an imaginary playmate. Not sure if that's relevant. I looked up a great deal to him, still do, and he's probably taught me more about life than any other person.

I'm the oldest. My mom and I are really good friends. She gets along with me more so than any of my younger siblings. That is a funny joke among us now that we are adults but as children that is a huge advantage. The only disadvantage was that I was held to a higher standard. One lie to my mother had the potential to demolish that alliance. I couldn't lie my way out of getting into trouble. I had to confess to all of my crimes. I'm sure my siblings were aware of the alliance I had with my mother from a very young age. I'm not sure if my family dynamic is the best to see these differences. My brother is 15 months younger than me and my youngest sister is 24 months younger than him. We were all about the same age.

Some of these are individual personality-driven. I'm a middle (#2) and I was always my Mom's favorite. I suspect being held to a higher standard in your case had to do with being the eldest, not the favorite. In our case if any kid was held to a higher standard it was still the eldest, regardless of parental favorites. I think that's two different dynamics.

Say, I didn't really look at it before but your poll distinguishes between second-born and other middles (3, 4, etc). Assuming none of them are the last-born, do you think there's a significant difference between positions 2 and 3?

 

[presonorek]

I don't know about "spoiled", I guess sometimes, but it's hard to make a case for the oldest being "ignored" when first they're the only game in town, and once siblings are born become the role model. Neither of those really translate to "ignored".

I did hear that my older brother, probably before I was born, had an imaginary playmate. Not sure if that's relevant. I looked up a great deal to him, still do, and he's probably taught me more about life than any other person.

I'm the oldest. My mom and I are really good friends. She gets along with me more so than any of my younger siblings. That is a funny joke among us now that we are adults but as children that is a huge advantage. The only disadvantage was that I was held to a higher standard. One lie to my mother had the potential to demolish that alliance. I couldn't lie my way out of getting into trouble. I had to confess to all of my crimes. I'm sure my siblings were aware of the alliance I had with my mother from a very young age. I'm not sure if my family dynamic is the best to see these differences. My brother is 15 months younger than me and my youngest sister is 24 months younger than him. We were all about the same age.

Some of these are individual personality-driven. I'm a middle (#2) and I was always my Mom's favorite. I suspect being held to a higher standard in your case had to do with being the eldest, not the favorite. In our case if any kid was held to a higher standard it was still the eldest, regardless of parental favorites. I think that's two different dynamics.

Say, I didn't really look at it before but your poll distinguishes between second-born and other middles (3, 4, etc). Assuming none of them are the last-born, do you think there's a significant difference between positions 2 and 3?

The concept of middle child is too ambiguous. Suppose you are a second born child with one younger children then 12 years later your mom has two kids. Now the third born becomes the middle child. If your family has an even number of children their is no middle child. Some people might consider any child that isn't the oldest or youngest to be a middle child. It is too hard to know what people mean when they say, "middle child".

A child who is second out of three will be different than child who is third out of five.

I also don't see a trend with the last born.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know about "spoiled", I guess sometimes, but it's hard to make a case for the oldest being "ignored" when first they're the only game in town, and once siblings are born become the role model. Neither of those really translate to "ignored".

I did hear that my older brother, probably before I was born, had an imaginary playmate. Not sure if that's relevant. I looked up a great deal to him, still do, and he's probably taught me more about life than any other person.

I'm the oldest. My mom and I are really good friends. She gets along with me more so than any of my younger siblings. That is a funny joke among us now that we are adults but as children that is a huge advantage. The only disadvantage was that I was held to a higher standard. One lie to my mother had the potential to demolish that alliance. I couldn't lie my way out of getting into trouble. I had to confess to all of my crimes. I'm sure my siblings were aware of the alliance I had with my mother from a very young age. I'm not sure if my family dynamic is the best to see these differences. My brother is 15 months younger than me and my youngest sister is 24 months younger than him. We were all about the same age.

Some of these are individual personality-driven. I'm a middle (#2) and I was always my Mom's favorite. I suspect being held to a higher standard in your case had to do with being the eldest, not the favorite. In our case if any kid was held to a higher standard it was still the eldest, regardless of parental favorites. I think that's two different dynamics.

Say, I didn't really look at it before but your poll distinguishes between second-born and other middles (3, 4, etc). Assuming none of them are the last-born, do you think there's a significant difference between positions 2 and 3?

The concept of middle child is too ambiguous. Suppose you are a second born child with one younger children then 12 years later your mom has two kids. Now the third born becomes the middle child. If your family has an even number of children their is no middle child. Some people might consider any child that isn't the oldest or youngest to be a middle child. It is too hard to know what people mean when they say, "middle child".

As I've always understood it any birth that is not the first or last is a "middle". That means an unlimited number of Middles. In my family there are three, and I don't see any difference between us as far as they dynamics examined here, other than gender. Certainly there is acute competition among Middles, more so as the births are closer together (closer in age) but all of the Middles have an eldest and a youngest to distinguish themselves from.

 

[presonorek]

Have you ever heard that statistically the oldest child will be alive to attend the funeral of all of his/her siblings?

This was something that I was told by a life insurance agent.