Momma Sandy Says - Birth Order

Moma Sandy Says

Birth Order

   The idea that a child's birth order having some effect on their personality is controversial.  Wikipedia is not fond of it, calling it "pop culture psychology."  I first heard about the concept in the early 1970's.  The idea has some merit, though it is far from sound scientifically.  I'll present the concepts and then comment.

   The first born is supposed to be the high achiever.  They seek approval, tend to be perfectionist.  They are reliable, conscientious, structured, cautious, and controlling.  They tend to be found in leadership careers such as law, medicine, business leaders, etc.

The second borns are very different.  Nor surprisingly they tend to be understanding, cooperative, flexible, yet competitive.  They can be people pleasers, somewhat rebellious and concerned with fairness.  They tend to have a large circle of friends and are considered to be peacemakers.  Some have said that a higher percentage of people in the arts can be found here.

The third borns are considered to be the baby of the family.  These tend to be the charming, fun loving, uncomplicated, outgoing ones.  On the negative side, they can also be manipulative, attention seeking, and self centered.  Their charm and likeability take them far.  Often the first and third borns are closer friends that with the second.

   Only children are said to be distinct.  In some ways they are like first borns, but without the competition from younger siblings.  They tend to be more verbal and seem more mature.  Other traits associated with them are resourceful, creative, confident, and perfectionists.  Strong leadership skills often pop up.  Think of them as the lone wolfs of the family structure.

   What about kid # 4 and so on?  What I've run across states that child #4 is like child #1, and so forth.  So child #6 is like child #3, etc.  Multiple births would be based on birth order as well.  Or so the theory goes.

   So what do I think about all this?  When I first heard of this I realized that it described my then boyfriend's family perfectly.  Number 1 turned out to be a respected reliable, conscientious lawyer.  Number 2 is still the family peacemaker.  And the family rebel.  And the only one of the 3 working in the arts.  Number 3 was, and still is the baby of the family.  She shares many traits with #1, as well as much closer ties.  I knew enough about the family that these traits were not trained, they were naturally occurring.

  Interesting.  But not enough to convince me that this theory is truly valid.  So I decided to collect more data.  It's what, 40 years later?  Still collecting data, though I'm coming to some conclusions.  I think the idea is reasonable due to logically occurring events.  The initial similarities between first borns and only children supports that.  What changes for the first born is that they now have competition.  With all the care a second baby needs, the first born has to work harder to prove that they deserve the time and affection they were used to getting.

   What happens with second borns is logical as well.  They have to compete with their older sibling for parental time and affection.  They also have to survive their older sibling.  The tendency towards large friendship circles was explained as creating a new support system when the other siblings push them out.

   And what about the third born?  Made sense too.  By the third child parents have figured out more of the parenting skill thing (hopefully) and are more relaxed.  These kids are charming and manipulative because they have to be in competition with the others!

   I looked at a lot of families.  My mom's family for one.  Alice was the firstborn.  Dead on.  Ralph the second born-yeah, pretty much with some compensation for the fact that he was preemie.  Everett - yeah, 3rd born.  Del was 4th, so back to first born.  Hard to tell, since Del suffered brain damage at age 17.  But probably pretty close.  Marion was number 5.  Rebellious?  Yes.  Understanding?  Cooperative, etc.?  Definitely.  Louise was #6 and a classic 3rd child.  Manipulative as the day is long.  Joan was the 7th, so back to #1.  Despite the fact that she was the youngest child, she really was a first born.  Interest stuff.

   But the system is not perfect.  I was an only child, but show traits from only child and child #2.  Probably because for the first part of my life my parents were helping raise my older cousin.  

   I'm still not sure how to explain my children.  God having a joke on me?  I wanted a girl first so that an older brother wouldn't bully her.  Boy did I have that backward!  I had my son first, and he is almost a classic second born-large group of friends and all.  His peacemaking skills have been greatly appreciated.  My second born daughter is clearly a first/third child mix.  All the charm when she wants to use it, with all the responsibility and leadership skills.  Whee!

  I think the experts are correct in that birth order is not a science.  I think it is more of a result.  And sometimes things like blended families, divorce, adoption, family psychological make-up, etc. can all effect it.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are stories out there of kids who changed to some degree after becoming part of a blended family, etc.  Children are adaptable.  I would say that birth order tends to be a function of nurture, not nature.

   Don't take the birth order stuff too seriously.  Observe it.  Knowing that a child of a certain birth order tends to be a certain way may help in discipline planning.  Note the may.  Certainly don't try to mold them into a birth order pattern.  Your kids are going to be who they're meant to be.  Our job is to try to help the process be a positive one.