Nicholas
Reid reflects in essay form on general matters and ideas related to
literature, history, popular culture and the arts, or just life in general. You are free to agree
or disagree with him.
SIBLING
STUPIDITY
Just last week I
saw an item in a national newspaper, on a topic which I thought had died the
death years ago.
It’s the old chestnut
about tracing personality traits to the order in which people are born into a
family.
I’m sure you’ve
heard this (or something like it) before. Elder (and especially eldest)
siblings are supposed to be dominant, conservative, controlling, perhaps authoritarian
because (says this theory) when they are children they have to take the
responsibility for organising and looking after their younger siblings.
Younger siblings
(says this same theory) are supposed to be more frivolous or more easy-going or
– if their eldest siblings are too controlling – more rebellious and hence more
creative
Time and again I
have seen this theory buttressed with the citation of well-known names from
history, politics and the arts and sciences, who are said to fit the pattern.
I have always
been extremely sceptical of this theory, regardless of the numbers of
illustrious names that have been thrust at me. I’m sure that how one relates to
one’s siblings (older or younger) will have much to do with the sort of person
one grows up to be. The order of one’s birth might have some influence on one’s
personality. But there are too many variables for the theory to hold much
water. What about race, culture, ethnicity? What about specific and individual
genetic inheritance? What about wealth and poverty and social class? What about
the size of the family? The inter-sibling dynamics of a family with three
children would be quite different from the inter-sibling dynamics of a family
with seven or eight children. Birth-order as a determinant of personality is
only one factor among others, and this being so, most analyses of personality
based upon it are rendered null and void.
On top of this,
the theory seems to rely on a dated conception of a large family where elder
children spend much of their time looking after younger ones.
Besides, having
observed a number of families myself, I have found many that contradict the
elder-authoritarian, younger-rebellious dichotomy. I know one family where the
eldest (male) sibling is far from being the siblings’ alpha-male and is more
put-upon than putting. I know another where the eldest sibling (female) is a
prize bossy-boots as per the theory, but is politely ignored by her younger
siblings who have never allowed themselves to be bossed.
So, returning to
the article I saw in the press this week, I noted with a sigh of contentment
that “experts” now say birth-order really has little to do with the type of
person one grows up to be. Early theories that said otherwise were based upon
limited data and the notorious confirmation bias.
Just when I was
feeling comfortable with this, however, the article ended by annoying me. The
same sociological “experts” have now decided that birth-order has something to
do with intelligence. They claim that the eldest offspring of most families
will score most highly on any IQ test, with each successive child performing at
one IQ point lower than the one before. Now, being the youngest child of a
family which (in New Zealand demographic terms) is abnormally large, I take this
personally. I am the seventh of seven. I know for a fact that whereas I am a
universal genius (as you will know from reading this blog each week), my eldest
siblings are drivelling idiots hardly capable of speaking a coherent word or
framing a sound argument. My wife and I have an even more abnormally large
family in New Zealand demographic terms. We have eight children, and I have yet
to note any significant dip in intelligence between the 40-year-old eldest and
the 17-year-old youngest.
An evil
suspicion comes to my mind. Is this new theory yet another example of the
ongoing eugenics campaign to persuade people to have fewer children? (“Don’t have any more children or they’ll get
progressively stupider!!”) Whether my suspicion is correct or not, I do not
doubt that in another few years there will be another, and equally inaccurate, sociological
theory about siblings and I will give another contemptuous laugh.
I close with
authentic photos of my elder siblings and the type of care they are receiving.
No comments:
Post a Comment