Is there any truth to the birth order hypothesis?

[afraid_of_the_dark]

I would call myself a cynic on this, because I think that there are a lot of other factors that influence personality. But after seeing PO'ed's poll, and the large percentage of "oldest" children here at DU, I'm wondering if there might be some traits common to those in similar birth orders.

So, I'm turning it over to you... are there any traits that you would consider as being fairly consistent for oldest, middle, youngest or only children? Or do you think it is bunk?

[southerngirlwriter]

1. Birth Order is a well-researched field of psychology.

Firstborns tend to be overachievers, perfectionists, neat freaks, etc.

Middle children tend to be peacemakers, laid back, easy to get along with, etc. Their marriages also tend to survive more than other birth orders.

Lastborns tend to be wild and crazy, free-spirit types.

Only children tend to be firstborns squared.

HOWEVER, if you do any reading on the subject (I highly recommend The Birth Order Book and The New Birth Order Book, both by Kevin Leman) you will find that it's not as simple as your actual birth order.

If there's a gap of 4 or 5 years or more, it tends to "start over." Also, depending on family dynamics, sometimes both the firstborn male and the firstborn female in a family will have firstborn characteristics.

I took several counseling classes that went into this at length.

Example:

In the following family dynamic, it's likely that every child will have firstborn traits:

Male, age 12
Female, age 10
Female, age 4


In my best friend's family, it looks like this (yes, they have THIS MANY kids. His parents never figured out where they were coming from, I guess. LOL.)

Female, age 52 Firstborn traits
Male, age 51 Middle-child traits
Male, age 42 Firstborn traits
Female, age 39 Firstborn traits
Female, age 27 Firstborn traits
Male, age 26 Lastborn traits
Female, age 22 Firstborn traits

Hope that helps. Dr. Leman explains it much better than I can. :shrug:

Edited for typos

[afraid_of_the_dark]

2. I'll have to check out the book...

I'm still not sure about it, but I'm always open to research-supported evidence. :)

Thanks!

[pmbryant]

3. Sounds fishy to me

Re-defining 'birth order' due to gaps of some arbitary size just seems a bit too easy a way to make inconsistencies disappear with a wave of the hand.

I'm a firstborn. I'm not an overachiever. I am a perfectionist. I am not a neat freak.

Already I sort of fit, and sort of don't. I fit more the 'middle children' brief description above.

But I haven't read the book.

:shrug:

Peter

[afraid_of_the_dark]

4. That's kind of where I'm at right now.

For every example I can think of that the birth order hypothesis is true, I can think of three that are false. And I think that the dynamics of the individual family dictate more of what the personalities of the individual will be, due to what role or roles they play within the family. I've taken several classes that discuss birth order briefly, but the problem is that I would not consider myself enough of an "expert" to give a definitive judgment one way or another.

But all of this just sounds like the same logic by which people conclude that their horoscope in the daily newspaper is correct, and I'm not too keen on that either.