PDA

View Full Version : Does Birth Order Determine Success?


Catapharact
10-05-06, 11:35
Doesn't seem to affect my siblings. We are all arrogant overachievers :p Lol!

Does Birth Order Determine Success?

By Kate Lorenz, CareerBuilder.com Editor

All men may be created equal; but a look at their pay stubs will tell you that their incomes are not. Blame it on social class, education -- even luck, but according to Dalton Conley, New York University professor of sociology and public policy, inequality begins at home.

In his book "The Pecking Order: Which Siblings Succeed and Why," Conley says that 75 percent of the income inequality between individuals in the United States occurs between siblings in the same families. He points to the diverse fortunes of Bill and Roger Clinton, and Jimmy and Billy Carter as examples.

Research shows that first borns (and onlys) lead the pack in terms of educational attainment, occupational prestige, income and net worth. Conversely middle children in large families tend to fare the worst. (Marcia! Marcia! Marcia!)

"A child's position in the family impacts his personality, his behavior, his learning and ultimately his earning power," states Michael Grose, author of "Why First Born Rule the World and Last-borns Want to Change It." "Most people have an intuitive knowledge that birth order somehow has an impact on development, but they underestimate how far-reaching and just how significant that impact really is."

Conley concedes that birth order is significant in shaping individual success, but only for children of large families -- four or more siblings -- and in families where finances and parental time are constrained. (In wealthy families, like the Bushes and Kennedys, it has less effect.)

Here's a look at what impact your birth-order may have on you:

First Borns:

More conscientious, ambitious and aggressive than their younger siblings, first borns are over-represented at Harvard and Yale as well as disciplines requiring higher education such as medicine, engineering or law. Every astronaut to go into space has been either the oldest child in his or her family or the eldest boy. And throughout history -- even when large families were the norm -- more than half of all Nobel Prize winners and U.S. presidents have been birst born. Famous eldest children include: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Richard Branson, J.K. Rowling and Winston Churchill. And macho movie stars are First Born, too, including Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis and all the actors who have played James Bond.

Middles:

Middle children are more easy going and peer-oriented. Since they can get lost in the shuffle of their own families, they learn to build bridges to other sources of support and therefore tend to have excellent people skills. Middle children often take on the role of mediator and peacemaker. Famous middle children include: Bill Gates, J.F.K., Madonna and Princess Diana.

Youngest:

The youngest child tends to be the most creative and can be very charming -- even manipulative. Because they often identify with the underdog, they tend to champion egalitarian causes. (Youngest siblings were the earliest backers of the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment.) Successful in journalism, advertising, sales and the arts, famous youngest children include Cameron Diaz, Jim Carrey, Drew Carey, Rosie O'Donnell, Eddie Murphy and Billy Crystal.

Only Children:

Only children have similar characteristics to first borns and are frequently burdened with high parental expectations. Research shows they are more confident, articulate and likely to use their imagination than other children. They also expect a lot from others, hate criticism, can be inflexible and are likely to be perfectionists. Well-known only children include Rudy Guiliani, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Alan Greenspan, Tiger Woods, tennis' teen queen Maria Sharapova and Leonardo Da Vinci.

Twins:

Because they hold equal status and are treated so similarly, twins turn out similarly in most cases. Consider advice columnists "Dear Abby" and "Ann Landers" (Abigail and Esther Friedman), and Harold and Bernard Shapiro, who became presidents of Princeton University and Canada's McGill University respectively.

Dr. Frank Sulloway, a behavioral scientist and visiting professor at the Institute of Personality and Social Research at University of California, Berkeley and author of the book, "Born To Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics and Creative Lives," says first borns are more similar in personality to first borns in other families than they are to their own younger siblings and that youngest children are often more similar to the youngest child in another family than his or her own elder siblings. He says this is because the family is not as much a "shared environment" as a set of niches that provide siblings with different outlooks.

Conley agrees, but stresses that these are just general trends -- and that the whole birth-order theory can be turned on its head depending on the child's personality, the age gap between siblings and the family circumstances each child experiences during his or her formative years.

MiCkiZ88
10-05-06, 11:39
Only children have similar characteristics to first borns and are frequently burdened with high parental expectations. Research shows they are more confident, articulate and likely to use their imagination than other children. They also expect a lot from others, hate criticism, can be inflexible and are likely to be perfectionists. Well-known only children include Rudy Guiliani, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Alan Greenspan, Tiger Woods, tennis' teen queen Maria Sharapova and Leonardo Da Vinci

:D just like me... though does that mean that I don't use my imagination? heck I have a wild Imagination and I'm pretty creative!!

tha_mattster
10-05-06, 11:43
I am youngest of four and most of what you said (or quoted) I agree with! Its spooky in a way, almost like a sort of fate. Other families with 4 kids I know are the same too. Interesting how each child achieves success with different methods.

Nicky
10-05-06, 16:52
Those are some interesting observations. However I think it's mostly the upbringing which determines a child's 'fate' - so to speak - independantly of birth order.

Conley concedes that birth order is significant in shaping individual success, but only for children of large families -- four or more siblings -- and in families where finances and parental time are constrained. (In wealthy families, like the Bushes and Kennedys, it has less effect.)

Well of course, since in larger families, the differences in characters and personalities are more varied - the more the children, the more the different personalities. As for the second part (about wealthy families): I guess it has less effect because children that grow up in a wealthy environment are all given the same opportunities since they are born. While in middle/lower class families, they have to look for opportunities on their own, in the outside world. Some make it, some don't make it so well.

Conley agrees, but stresses that these are just general trends -- and that the whole birth-order theory can be turned on its head depending on the child's personality, the age gap between siblings and the family circumstances each child experiences during his or her formative years.
This is basically the clue, I think :)

Catapharact
10-05-06, 16:59
Well of course, since in larger families, the differences in characters and personalities are more varied - the more the children, the more the different personalities. As for the second part (about wealthy families): I guess it has less effect because children that grow up in a wealthy environment are all given the same opportunities since they are born. While in middle/lower class families, they have to look for opportunities on their own, in the outside world. Some make it, some don't make it so well.

Exactly. Its the main reason why me and my brothers all got equal opportunity at first class education, first class experiences and first class mannerism (if there is such a thing per say Lol!) However, I do want to stress that we still compete with each other. Some would say that its totally unecessary since we all have everything we want. My agument for the competition has its basis on what results it brings. The competition allowed us all the further our own abilities and strength and in many ways it made us better and ready for the world :).

Bros all that way! :D

Nicky
10-05-06, 17:03
My agument for the competition has its basis on what results it brings. The competition allowed us all the further our own abilities and strength and in many ways it made us better and ready for the world :)
Sure! :) As long as each one tries to become better in areas where each is more capable - that is, not trying to outgo each other in the same field, even if not all of them are inclined to that. From your words, I can tell that this competition worked the right way for you and your brothers :)

Lara Lover
10-05-06, 17:04
Youngest:

The youngest child tends to be the most creative and can be very charming -- even manipulative. Because they often identify with the underdog, they tend to champion egalitarian causes. (Youngest siblings were the earliest backers of the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment.) Successful in journalism, advertising, sales and the arts, famous youngest children include Cameron Diaz, Jim Carrey, Drew Carey, Rosie O'Donnell, Eddie Murphy and Billy Crystal.

:tmb:

ILG49ers
10-05-06, 17:10
Very interesting, but I wouldn't say those are accurate observations. At least as far as me and my brothes go.


Middles:

Middle children are more easy going and peer-oriented. Since they can get lost in the shuffle of their own families, they learn to build bridges to other sources of support and therefore tend to have excellent people skills. Middle children often take on the role of mediator and peacemaker. Famous middle children include: Bill Gates, J.F.K., Madonna and Princess Diana.


Bill Gates is a middle child...that gives me hope. :p

Catapharact
10-05-06, 17:11
Sure! :) As long as each one tries to become better in areas where each is more capable - that is, not trying to outgo each other in the same field, even if not all of them are inclined to that. From your words, I can tell that this competition worked the right way for you and your brothers :)

Well... the goal is infront of us. We just prefect our individual abilities to reach it. A win is a win, not matter how you run the race. We jumped our hurdles our way; Both physically and mentally (though will admit, my older bro could break me in two if I tried getting too annoying Lol!)

Where there is a will there is a way :). I really think people lack ambition sometimes. They plan a goal but stray away from it. If its financial or tragic reasosns, I can understand that, but if you give me the excuse that you got bored of it, I am gonna look down upon you.

Nicky
10-05-06, 17:18
(though will admit, my older bro could break me in two if I tried getting too annoying Lol!)
LOL :D

Where there is a will there is a way :). I really think people lack ambition sometimes. They plan a goal but stray away from it.
Oh this is so true Umair. From what I've seen, usually people tend to make plans about the future, but don't actually do much about their realisation... they just sit and wait for everything to arrive to them on a silver plate :rolleyes: :D I think people should always try to make themselves and their lives better. Focus on what they want to achieve and try all their best for that. Unless there are reasons like the ones you mention (financial or health problems etc), when people say 'I can't do that', it usually means 'I don't want to do that' - and this is such a stopper for their personal and social development.

In this sense, competition can only be fruitful as long as one gets inspired by the other's progress so as to reach a personal goal :)

Janny
10-05-06, 17:20
I'm the youngest in my home, but I'm not creative or charming, yet I do tend to champion egalitarian causes ;)

Catapharact
10-05-06, 17:28
Focus on what they want to achieve and try all their best for that. Unless there are reasons like the ones you mention (financial or health problems etc), when people say 'I can't do that', it usually means 'I don't want to do that' - and this is such a stopper for their personal and social development.

In this sense, competition can only be fruitful as long as one gets inspired by the other's progress so as to reach a personal goal :)

Though it may be truly considered "mean," for us taunting worked. No really hear me out; My younger bro wan't exactly a strong willed person. He would break down even after the most minute difficulties. Its after that us older ones pushed him hard and worked over him that he developed a will of iron. Now, he along with the rest of us aspires to get his yellow belt in Jiu Jitsu (After that he can join my older bro and me for Capoeira ;) Lol!)

ILG49ers
10-05-06, 17:37
I agree with you Catapharact. :tmb: Me and my brothers are always being competitive amongst each other, and I believe it makes us better. If Iím ready to give up on something, I know my brothers will get on me to make sure I do it.

jun89
10-05-06, 17:59
There are three children in my family...I'm the oldest. I'm like the 'mr. know-it-all' :D They all always come to me when they want to know something. I often know it:confused: :D

My brother (the middle one) is maybe intelligent (somewhere deep inside:D ) but he sometimes makes himself a total fool and seems to be "little" stupid :vlol:

And the mysterious one, my youngest bro. He's 4Ĺ years old and seems to be very intelligent. He's very decisive and can sometimes be very nasty when he won't get what he wants...dangerous boy :mis: :D

Well, that was all and seems to match the text in the beginning of this post. :cln: