Why first-born children have higher IQs?

Question

hello ,

i have read an interesting story over here

http://www.socialdailynews.com/2008/04/why-first-born-children-have-higher-iqs

Why first-born children have higher IQs?

Do u think thats true

Answer 1

lol

im way smarter than  my older brother or maybe hes just lazy and smokes pot all day but

it can be true

Answer 2

I know that first-borns/single kids are also more likely to turn to others in a stressful situation versus later-borns.. lol just learned that in my psychology class the other day

Answer 3

I'm the 3rd daughter. Both my sisters have MENSA level I.Q.s,

and I tested higher than either one. However, by the time I was born, my family was in turmoil, my mother desparatly unhappy and my father drinking nightly. My sisters both have college degrees and are financially secure, however, my little brother and I grew up in an unhappy, somestimes violent household and both of us are to hyper active to have stayed in school or commit to a career, and I believe I.Q.s only show potential, not a one deal. My genius is in survival and healing, not college degrees or financial stability.

Answer 4

First borns are pushed more educationally at a very young age. They get a lot of one to one time alone with mom learning to read and doing their numbers before school. By the time the second one comes along, you're nowhere near as bothered, you just let them sit and watch teletubbies as long as they aren't fighting, as you are too busy to fuss over them.

Answer 5

Not allways true.

It is likely because the mother is younger when giving birth to the 1st and because they receive more attention.

Answer 6

I'm first born and my IQ is higher than my brothers. His is 74 and mine is 78. My surname is Gump.

Answer 7

Quality time with parents before siblings come along and added responibility tending for younger siblings.  My oldest sister is a lovely person but not the highest IQ of the family.

Answer 8

I'm a first-born

I'd say it isn't far from the truth *GRIN!*

Answer 9

My sister is an idiot.

No its not true.

Answer 10

I don't know how I can help here;

Neurons connect at the highest rate up to the first 2 years.

Child is receptive to knowing...=....input stage.

Recall of memory and analysis is few.

Usually a child learns more, in these 2 years  than at any time in their life[some say, maximum learning]

Marriage is usually at a bliss, since it is young and the first baby is special to them.

With the arrival of the next baby, the first born realises that it must stand on it's own. [and that the 'honeymoon' with the parents, is over]. An earlier realisation or a jump start over the next.

The siblings don't feel this exactly, as the first born and they become sometimes, dependant on the elder for problem solving. [a disadvantage opted for unknowingly]. This encourages the first born to try and live up to their siblings expectations.

I am not in to Anthropology....I like some of your explanations.

Answer 11

I'm not sure if it's true, from my experience, I've found that sometimes it is true, sometimes it isn't like in some families I know, the eldest is the smartest, but in other families, the other siblings are smarter than the eldest all from big families.  But, this article is very interesting! :)

Answer 12

It's not easy finding your way out of a new womb!

First-born people are natural leaders!

The rest are followers...

; -)

Answer 13

Well, the IQ difference is pretty tiny.  Three points is the greatest spread.  It doesn't say what the margin of error is, but I'm guessing that's well within.   I've taken a few IQ tests online, and I've gotten a thirty point spread.  Obviously, my online tests aren't exactly scientifically rigorous, but then again, IQ tests are only a couple of steps above palm reading anyway.

If that spread actually was relevant, I would make a couple of guesses as to factors.  We know that IQ testing of normal-intelligence people measures their socialization more than anything else.  Eldest children are usually going to have more time interacting with adults than the second or third kids.  A two year old learns a lot more off of adults than she does off of a four year old, and oldest and only children have only their parents to interact with in the home, at least for a while.  If anyone wants to make the claim that these tests measure intelligence with any accuracy (which I dispute, but whatever), I would also guess that maybe economics has something to do with it.  Kids are expensive, and it might just be that the couple of years not having to share resources with a sibling is enough.  But these are idle speculations, and, as I said, I really don't think that it's statistically significant.