COVER STORY: “The Power of Birth Order,” by Jeffrey Kluger, Time, 12 November 2007, p. 32.
Birth order is interesting to this eighth of nine.
This article recaps the increasingly coherent picture painted by study after study.
Higher up on the chain, the more money you make. Lower down and you’re more likely to be the artist or loose cannon.
But later kids tend to be more perceptive, if not as IQ smart. They adopt “low-power strategies” more. They charm. They work niches. They’re better at figuring out who knows what.
Later kids are also more likely to be the revolutionaries and visionaries. Says Ben Dattner, a professor of organization pysch, “Later-borns are better at transformational change. They pursue riskier, more innovative, more creative approaches.” They tend to be the smart asses and satirists and natural performers.
I can see all of that stuff in me. My universe was full of bigger, stronger people who held power over me my entire childhood. The natural response was to scheme, charm, and perform my way into people’s affection. Also, the rule sets got looser as I aged, compared to older siblings, so I pressed boundaries more, and got away with more at less cost/punishment.
It is a hard image to escape, being the second youngest, or one of the “two little boys.” It’s kept me somewhat immature on some levels, which I don’t mind, since I’ve turned it into an advantage, a skill, and a product in terms of my thinking. I am the “doubting Thomas,” as my grandpa J.E. liked to tease me. And my third born is my spitting image in this regard. His teacher says he negotiates everything, constantly trying to talk her out of things and propose alternatives. She tolerates it, because Jerry’s very funny and quite the charmer. But it’s also irritating a lot of the time. I remember being a trying kid for adults much of the time, and I knew I was like that, and there seemed little I could do about it. It was just the way I was.
Keeping in the vein of exploring America’s past: as recently as a century ago kids in the U.S. had only about a 50% chance of making it into adulthood, just like much of the Gap today.
Makes me glad I was born and reared in the abundance that was the 1960s in America.
| Permalink |
Comments (6)
"Also, the rule sets got looser as I aged, compared to older siblings, so I pressed boundaries more, and got away with more at less cost/punishment."
As a virtual first born (second of twins), this infuriated me in my late adolescence (OK, I still fill cheated . . . ). As a parent with #2 due on Monday, I've noticed that birth order in the US now seems binary. You are either first or last, because (almost) everyone has 2 kids. As 1 of 4, an average-sized family in 70's Detroit, we had no expectation that everyone would be treated exactly the same. I certainly see a lot of black and white, zero sum, 'me too' reactions by my wife & her only sister, as well as the young doublets of today. Not quite the same impact as China (and Italy's) 'Little Emperors', but certainly a shaping force which separates us from the gap.
Posted by TEJ
|
November 16, 2007 7:42 AM
How about some analysis of the future of China with mostly one child families?
Posted by J Canepa | November 16, 2007 8:01 AM
Dan inspired me to do some research and post on my own weblog.
Posted by Anonymous
|
November 16, 2007 10:09 PM
Was I the only one who read this and thought of the Weasleys in Harry Potter? Older boys went into corporate and government work, the youngest became pranksters, or hung out with a scar-faced loner with a prophecy on his head.
Posted by Michael | November 17, 2007 1:16 AM
we, Michael, i can't speak fro anyone else, but i sure didn't make that connection ;-)
Posted by Anonymous
|
November 17, 2007 8:02 AM
In my family, and a couple others I know, it was actually reverse...oldest tends to be the more adventurous type, 'blazing trails' so to speak.
There are probably generational and environmental factors that come into play with the exceptions.
Posted by Shawn in Tokyo | November 19, 2007 9:52 AM