Who's smarter the first born or the second born (or the third or forth)?
I always hear, the first born child is smarter because they have more attention from the parents.... or the second born is smarter because of the older brother/sister, etc... So what do you believe? Are the first born children smarter because they have more direct attention or is the youngest smarter because they have older role models? Let me know your thoughts on this subject.
I have two half-sisters who are much younger than me, one is 12 years younger and the other is 15 years younger. Before them I was an only child, and a late developer in regards to walking, talking etc. The sister who is 12 years younger than me was also a late developer, whereas the youngest sister was very quick, walking and talking much faster than both me and the other sister. I think this is because the youngest sister learnt from the middle sister and as there is only around 3 years difference between the two, the younger sister had someone her own age to learn from, someone she could look up to and copy.
I think that a second or third child may have an advantage having older sibling in which they can have access to learn, but I do not think you can actually say that one child would be smarter that the other. There are many factors that go into the development of a child which can stem from so many different things. Things that start at the time of conception, to the health of the child, all the way up to the environment in which the child grows up in.
I don't think there is such a thing as first born or second born is smarter. I grew up in a family of ten and comparing myself with my brothers and sisters, we are equally good at different things.
It is the way you are being brought up and the exposure among your friends will determine your direction. It is what you pick up from school and friends. What you have learned and applying these into your life to be successful.
So, learning as much as you can from your brothers and sisters helps you to go further in a milestone.
I noticed that my first child was the slowest to progress developmentally. Now, I think he is more naturally gifted than the others, but because he was the "trailblazer" and the "proto-type", he did things at his own pace. His siblings benefited from his mentoring and hence developed quicker at a younger age.
I think I saw the same scenario played out in my development as the middle child. Although I was not the most gifted naturally, I was the studious one, who eclipsed the others through sheer determination.
Oh, the first born, of course, JJ, as they get first crack at the gene pool. Not that I'm biased or anything like that. It's just that I know because I are one!
The oldest child is smarter because parents spent more time interacting with him/her. He/she, as a result of spending more time with his/her parents, develop earlier and have more adult speech. Parents are also more exacting of oldest children than they are succedent children. More parental interaction with oldest and only children are why such children are more advanced and adult-like at an early age.
Even though older children teach younger children skills, they do not possess as much knowledge and education as the parents. Younger children who do not have parental teaching oftentimes have a more elementary and rudimentary mannerism and vocabulary because of primarily interacting with other siblings and/or older siblings. In essence, such children are more intellectually immature. Children raising themselves are not as proficient and advanced as children who are taught by their parents.
That is the difference between the small family(1-2 children), medium family(3-4 children) and the large family(6 children and more) systems. In the former two family systems, parents interact with their children. Children in small and medium sized families receive individualized parental attention. The ratio of children to parents is not so much as the parent loses his/her span of control. In such families, the oldest child is not asked to raise his/her younger siblings. It is the parents who assume the major familial responsibilties.
In large to very large families, parental involvement is little to nonexistent. Parental duties are delegated to the oldest and/or older children in the family. THEY are the parents, not the actual parents themselves. It is de rigueur for children in large to very large families to raise and fend for themselves. In large to very large families, it is a swim or sink environment. Children from large to very large families either must be independent or they will go under.
Furthermore, in large to very large families, oldest and/or older are neglected and cast aside in favor of the younger children. In small families, all children are loved and adored by their parents and are given equal parity. Such is not the case in large to very large families, the oldest child particularly is given more responsibility at an earlier age than their younger siblings are at similar ages. In large and very large families, oldest and/or older children are not favored and loved but the younger ones are.
In my family, the oldest is very mechanically and technically minded and is able to skip multiple steps in problem solving. He got straight As without trying until college. He sometimes struggles with communication and is terrible at reading body language. Although he is mind-blowingly efficient, he struggles with motivation. He is currently a nuclear engineer and is the stereotypical genius. He also has the most musical talent. He probably received the least attention from our parents, but we kids always depended on him for help, instruction, and advice.
The second is very verbal and has a vivid imagination. He can convince anyone to do anything and have them think it was their idea. All subjects in school came more or less naturally to him until he took Physics and Calculus. He currently teaches English at the secondary level and leaves the impression that he's incredibly intelligent. He's the golden boy of the family, and he probably received the most attention from our parents.
I'm third, and I have a fair dose of natural intelligence, but my success is attributable to creative problem solving skills and hard work. If I hadn't studied in school, I would have gotten A grades until I took Algebra 2 and Chemistry. Instead, I studied harder than my older siblings and got slightly better grades. I have no "practical" talents as they are all artistic in nature (writing, dancing, singing, playing and writing music, etc.) I am currently a poet, novelist, tutor, and freelance writer. I probably have the same intelligence as my second brother. I got a little more attention than the oldest. I benefited immensely from interactions with my brilliant siblings.
The fourth is more intelligent than anyone gives her credit for because she is so humble. Her greatest natural gift is her compassion and her ability to step back from a situation, analyze its inner workings, and see what everyone misses. She is a better than average student and gets A grades when she puts her mind to it. She will graduate college in the fall and is currently looking for work as a geologist or geophysicist. She received the second most attention from our parents and the most attention from her siblings. I think she will turn out to be the most well-rounded and successful of all of us.
As to who is the smartest and why, it's sort of like choosing from Einstein, Shakespeare, or Mozart.
The first born (but I am biased). I am one of 4 and I think all my siblings are smart. The second born got better marks than I did at School but I think that might be because she worked a lot harder than me. Maybe being in the middle made her competative. The youngest also did really well as School, one of my teachers who also taught me told me that he thought this was really surprising because "the youngest children are usually the most stupid". I think it depends on a lot of different things though, not just your position in the family.
Well, I'm the 2nd born, and even my older brother agrees that I'm the smartest one around. This is where our genes come into play. this random jumble of who gets what features. A sufficient answer to this one would be dependent on the children being compared. At least, that's how I feel.
Oh, I know there are so many different answers to this question, but in all honesty, I think it's completely dependent on a child's innate intelligence and how it's developed. My sister and I are nearly eleven years apart. I graduated high school, she dropped out. I don't have a college degree, and now she has one. We are both intelligent. The only difference is that our interests diverge and she is not a naturally academically inclined person. I am. If I had my way, I'd spend the rest of my life in college learning everything I could. She is, however, far more disciplined than I am and far more likely to finish what she starts. So, both of us are naturally intelligent, but we're very different characters, so it shows in different ways. Neither of us is any smarter than the other.
I think it doesn't depend on it. It's a nonscence. Everything depends on parenting and bringing up children. That's all.
Probably the only child. Kids that have siblings get their heads screwed with too much. Being told they are adopted, that they are from an alien planet, or that Mom and Dad said it's ok to do something when it really isn't. They never know what's going on and can't even trust good advice.
YOU PREACH ON! Totally concur, of course only children are THE SMARTEST.Their main interactors are parents instead of siblings.Parents as adults have MORE knowledge.Only children are FREE to explore & develop their UTMOST potential.NEEDN'T say mo
I think the case would vary based on experience by everyone. I have experience that my second born is much smarter and active than the first one. I think it is because she has got her own age mate to play with. The first one was the only child in the house and her activities were quite limited. The younger one learns too much from all of us, also from her elder sister, how she does different activities, school work, games all that. She often tries to copy her. For the first one, there were no such activities, only those from elders.
It just depends on how the parents work with the kids. If they do about the same with the first to make the first smart then the rest of the kids will be smart. and when you think about it, everyone is smarter in different subjects. My best friend has 5 siblings. Her brother does computers, and he is the oldest. then there is her oldest sister and she works in a bank, and she is a pretty smart kid herself. I still get surpised to see her youngest sister, age 10. Enjoy reading books and is a smart kid.
Well since I'm a first born, I will go with the first born child being smarter. :-) Really, I'm not sure there's any strong statistical correlation between birth order and intelligence. It probably varies enormously from family to family.
I feel there are too many variables to draw any rules or conclusions.
Take my family, for instance. My late parents were both smart, but not geniuses.
Here's the IQ's of the 4 boys they had:
4) 200+ (unmeasurable)
I got the short end of this stick, but I'm perfectly okay with that. I do good things with what I've been given. I've seen far smarter people miss things because they were arrogant. So, humility plays a big part in intelligence. If you think you already know it all, you're going to miss a lot of evidence to the contrary.
No discoveries or learning was ever made without at least some humility.
The answer depends upon many factors like parental genes, environment, etc. But normally the first born are very rarely smart. The youngest will be more smarter than others. Because younger child receives more attention and love from all sides and learns from elders. Further, youngest will be free from burdens and so has more potential to think freely and smartly than the elders.
In my opinion, it's the one who decides to get their life in order first. The one who decides to start learning and making educated decisions early on.
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 months ago
Why do parents of large to very large families tend to delegate the raising of the youngerchildren to the oldest sibling? Many parents from large to very large families (6 or more children) state that they...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 months ago
I believe that the oldest child in a family have the toughest and roughest path to go. He/she was automatically dethroned upon the birth/births of a successive sibling/siblings. He/she is often held to...
by Nichol marie2 months ago
Do you know someone who is prejudice of larger families?Why do some people have an ignorant belief that moms of large families cannot be the same as moms with one or 2?
by Marianne Sherret2 months ago
Is the youngest child in the family always spoilt?
by Cindy Lawson4 years ago
How many children do you think is too many to have?There is a woman on the island where I live who survives only on benefits and now has 14 children. She openly admitted she got jealous when her 16 year old daughter got...
by jagandelight2 months ago
Do you think an only child is better off more than they are with siblings?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.