First-borns are smarter?

[Loki]

Study that says first-borns are smarter leads to debate among parents

(CNN) -- I am a middle child, and I don't think my older sister would be too upset to hear me take issue with the latest study to find that first-born children do better in school than us kids who were born later. (Hint: I was the kid who loved school!)

But science is science, and this study, a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, follows several other studies that came to similar conclusions about the children who came first.

In the latest one, the authors found that first-borns got better grades, and concluded, based on their research, that it's because parents are stricter with the first-borns and get a bit more lax when it comes to enforcing TV rules, monitoring homework, and even getting upset over bad grades for subsequent children.

"You don't even have to have written about siblings to know that parents always relax more with the second kids and relax more still with the third kids," said Jeffrey Kluger, senior editor at Time magazine and author of "The Sibling Effect: What the Bonds Among Brothers and Sisters Reveal About Us."

"Now sometimes that's a good thing because you are not going to boil the pacifier every time it falls on the floor with the second and third kids," said Kluger. "The downside can be that (parents) become a bit more lackadaisical."

No surprise, I found no shortage of parents who vehemently take issue with the study and its findings.

"I personally don't think that I am 'easier' on my second-born because we have high standards for both our children," said Ashley Fitting of northern California, a parenting and lifestyle blogger and mom to a 4-year-old and 10-month-old.

"I do think that I learned from having my first, and so my second is reaping the benefits of me no longer being a complete hopeless mess of trial and error," she said.

Marc Reiner, a father of two elementary school-age girls in New York City, said while the first child receives "more parenting," he's not so sure it's the "same as better parenting."

"It's nice to think it has a positive effect, but I suspect that it might actually be the reverse and the younger kids are smarter because they pick up more from their siblings," he said on Facebook. (We should note he is the youngest of three boys.)

But first-borns such as Amanda Rodriguez of Frederick, Maryland, who said somewhat facetiously she is "way smarter" than her brother, think there is something unique about the children who come first. She said growing up she was more determined and focused than her brother was.

"My oldest son is the same thing," said Rodriguez, a mom of three boys who are 5, 8 and 11, and founder of the blog, Dude Mom. "He's extremely responsible. He's always where he's supposed to be. He's very conscientious in school, and my subsequent children are just not like that."

Her young boys seem like they're "probably intellectually smarter," she said, but they're not getting the same grades as her oldest because he's "just trying harder. He's more focused."

Previous studies, such as one I reported on back in 2007, found that first-borns had higher IQs than their siblings because they got more undivided time and attention from mom and dad before their sister or brother came along.

"Clearly we know that parents' input and verbal involvement with kids has a pretty significant effect upon their development," said Dr. Richard Gallagher of New York University's Child Study Center. "And so if it gets what you would describe as slightly watered down for older born kids, that could have an effect."

That said, Gallagher, associate professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the NYU School of Medicine, said we need to be careful about assuming that a first-born is always going to perform better academically than his or her siblings. He also said there's a takeaway here for all of us parents.

"When you know this information, it's a good idea to say, 'Hmmm. I guess I better not provide less attention in the early years to my next born kid. I guess I should also make sure that I should raise the same kinds of concerns about school performance with my younger kids that I've done with my older kids,' " he said.

When you hear that half of U.S. presidents are first-borns, and leading thinkers such as Albert Einstein and Steve Jobs were born first, too, you will probably run home and start giving children numbers 2, 3 and 4 some extra time and attention tonight.

But before you do that, keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson was the third of eight kids, and billionaire Bill Gates was a middle, too.

And ultimately, how much does it come down to nature vs. nurture?

"At the end of the day, you're looking at that old scientific question," said Fitting, the parenting blogger and mom of two young kids.

"I think that you're always going to need a combination of the two, but all children are going to have a chance at something great if they have involved and engaged parents," she added.

Give all children, no matter their birth order, the gift of thinking anything is possible, many moms say.

"Empowering children by telling them that they are the best whether they're youngest, middle, oldest, I think that is really the key thing," said designer Ghada Dergham of Palm Beach, Florida, a single mom of three children now in their 20s and a season regular on DIY's "The Vanilla Ice Project" and "My Ice House."

"Feed our children with the positivity of you can can do anything you put your mind to. Just be passionate about it and put your heart and soul in it and everything else will come together," she added.

[larali]

My first daughter is gifted. She said her first words-- "I love you"-- at 3 months old, and has always astounded everyone with her intellect. At 7 years old she reads books meant for middle schoolers and is generally very mature and smart.

My second daughter seems a little more "average", but I think it's because I spend less one on one time with her than I did with the first one. She was slower to speak and to read, slower to potty train, and talks like a 4 year old (which she is), not like a 6 or 7 year old like her sister did at that age. She is still smart but not way ahead of her peers.

I was a firstborn, and I was identified "gifted", while my sisters were average. My husband was also a gifted firstborn, while his sister is average.

So in my experience, firstborns tend to be gifted. Not sure what the reasons for that are.

[Jackson]

Does this apply to only families with multiple children?
I'm an only child but was always many years ahead with some things, like reading age. I think when i was about 10 i had a reading age of 18 or something, and i always got selected for those 'gifted and talented' things where they try to push certain students more. I think it must do at least to some degree with the amount of time spent, although i guess it depends on how that time is spent. And also we have to distinguish between academic style intelligence and practical intelligence. For example my grandmother can barely read but at age 6 she was going shopping for her mother, and very self-sufficient at an early age, while i was entirely dependent at that age afaik. So i don't think it's clear cut. Perhaps it's a good thing that siblings have different strengths, some are better at academic pursuits, others at socialising, other's at physical tasks - And that dependence is varied. After all in our society we need a mix (and the right mix) of these traits to survive and progress. If everyone was not very capable of academic style intelligence, we would advance very slowly and be limited technologically, if we were not good at socialising or physical tasks - We would struggle to survive, and also not be able to provide a more stable environment for the pursuit of intellectual tasks. They are all as important as each other, and people often forget that, to the detriment of our kind.

[silver_surfer]

There's also some evidence that older kids benefit from having siblings to teach. teaching someone else the material you're learning helps you absorb it better, so older kids who can teach their younger siblings to read, write, count, etc. get better at those things themselves.

[justme]

Bullshit!

[robar]

My first daughter is gifted. She said her first words-- "I love you"-- at 3 months old, and has always astounded everyone with her intellect. At 7 years old she reads books meant for middle schoolers and is generally very mature and smart.

My second daughter seems a little more "average", but I think it's because I spend less one on one time with her than I did with the first one. She was slower to speak and to read, slower to potty train, and talks like a 4 year old (which she is), not like a 6 or 7 year old like her sister did at that age. She is still smart but not way ahead of her peers.

I was a firstborn, and I was identified "gifted", while my sisters were average. My husband was also a gifted firstborn, while his sister is average.

So in my experience, firstborns tend to be gifted. Not sure what the reasons for that are.

No there is absolutely no genetical evidence that first-born for that reason would have higher inteligence etc..

[Black Wolf]

Seems about right lol...Jk.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

In the latest one, the authors found that first-borns got better grades, and concluded, based on their research, that it's because parents are stricter with the first-borns and get a bit more lax when it comes to enforcing TV rules, monitoring homework, and even getting upset over bad grades for subsequent children.

I hate how they just make up conclusions like this. Firstborns have a lower incidence of a whole lot of problems, higher IQs on average, and are usually the most successful.

I think I beat the odds regarding IQ because it seems I somehow take strongly after my matenal grandfather, who was particularly bright, but I do not think I am quite the prize my older siblings are in other respects. Much more moody for example.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

No there is absolutely no genetical evidence that first-born for that reason would have higher inteligence etc..

There actually is, it's called epigenetics. Every child a woman has, has more chance for epigenetic damage. Additionally, problems from rh difference pregnancies only show up in second or third kid.

[Sikeliot]

I am definitely smarter and more motivated than my brother.