Talk:Birth order

Neutrality?
This article clearly takes the side of birth order having little or no effect on personality. While it is fine to explore that possibility, the page should also list and elaborate on some of the possible generalized qualities of a first-born, middle child, etc. Even a section on stereotypes dealing with birth order would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.179.213 (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, for a psychology article, where consensus is usually as scarce as a puddle in the desert, this does seem to be only one side of the coin. The summary at then beggining seems too definitive and narrow for such a complex topic. It seems to confuse birth order with "birth order theory". The term "birth order" is not a theory, it is simply the order someone is born in. The article seems like it arguing against a theory, when really the article is about the concept of birth order itself. The page seems more like a graduate thesis arguing for one side rather than an all encompassing look at an extremely complex issue. The introduction is too declarative. Essentially what I am getting is "this recent major study says it means absolutely nothing therefore it means nothing". I think it's silly to suggest in the intro that birth order has absolutely no impact on your personality. Everything someone does can potentially impact how someone develops, and the article even admits that it does influence aspects of your personality depending on your individual family and situation. The intro needs to reflect the complexity of the topic and needs to be less declaritive and more encompassing to alternate studies. It can still stress what major studies say, but it can't act like one study ends every argument to the contrary. Mentioning only one study that says it has 0% effect on personality in the intro seems like a blanket statement trying to cover an issue with many ridges and valleys. Also this article mentions pop culture as if it were an organization or a person. I am not sure it is appropriate for an article. The term "pop culture" is a nebulous, vague, and subjective term. It is not something that is easily measurable and is non specific by nature. It is not a thing that holds opinions or beliefs. In the intro it says "despite disconfirmation, the theory still has a presence in pop culture" and that it is a zombie theory. This jumps out to me as an something you would see as an argument to someone's thesis in a college paper rather than an objective fact in an encyclopedia. I don't mean that as an insult, I mean that it seems like someones argument rather than an objective statement. Finally, there are other opinions on birth order that should be better represented. A contrary view mentioning studies should at least be included in the intro. There are many of them. If you google birth order psychology there are many reputable psychologists who write about it and who cite reputable sources with their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.39.182 (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. See Fight me, Psychologists: Birth Order Effects Exist And Are Very Strong. Basically, SSC commenters are more than twice as likely to be the firstborn child of N as opposed to any other child, for any N from two to six. The author makes no claim as to why this is the case, but something's clearly going on here; this is clearly significant. 24.61.57.240 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

04:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that this article could do with some revamping. I have added a section on Zajonc's confluence model. There should also be some acknowledgement that one's subjective birth order may not be identical to one's objective birth order (for example, a child with a chronic illness may be objectively the eldest, but actually feel as if he or she is younger than other siblings). What I would like to see is more contextualisation of this piece, putting it in the wider context of a discussion of "why children in the same family are so different" and how psychologists generally claim that this is evidence for the importance of nonshared environmental effects (environmental experiences which siblings do not share) in development. This could easily lead on to criticisms from those psychologists, such as Robert Plomin or Judith Rich Harris, who are highly skeptical about birth order as a variable to explain these differences. A. Carl 11:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In this wiki. article, are only-children purposely not discussed, or can first-borns and only-children be put into the same category?

This article needs both better content, and better citation.

Added external link to Birth Order Patterns kacys 08:08, 29 Oct 2006

As a class project for the next month or so we will be making updates to this wiki. Let us know if you have ideas for updates or additions. kacys 08:08, 3 Nov 2006

Added text disputing intelligence kacys 07:15, 6 Nov 2006

Added text on religion kacys 05:54, 9 Nov 2006

Edited text on Only Child kacys 08:54, 12 Nov 2006

Edited text on Only Child kacys 08:54, 13 Nov 2006

Edited text on first born and middle child kacys 08:54, 14 Nov 2006

Added text on Judith Rich Harris

kacys 03:47, 15 Nov 2006

Added link on Judith Rich Harris's wiki to her article kacys 08:48, 14 Nov 2006

Added new category on Sexuality kacys 06:36, 16 Nov 2006 will add more later.

Added more on personality kacys 05:21, 17 Nov 2006

Added more on Judith Rich Harriskacys 06:54, 18 Nov 2006

Plans: add categories on: Twins, boy or girl order, parental attitude, economic status, add more text and citations for birth order categories, update Judith Rich Harris's wiki, merge only children and only childkacys 08:15, 18 Nov 2006

Added more on idea of birth order theories and disputeskacys 08:26, 18 Nov 2006

Added link to study in religionkacys 1:26, 18 Nov 2006 Work on twins research and edit only child and only children wikikacys 1:26, 25 Nov 2006

Updated info. on sexuality; proposed merging Fraternal birth order with birth order. kacys:kacys 6:40 26 Nov 2006

Added Marriage category kacys:kacys 6:40 26 Nov 2006

Added quote from Nurture Assumption here and Harris's wiki and added link from Harris to birth order kacy:kacy 7:27 26 Nov 2006

Added text on First Born 02:03, 28 November 2006 Mecatlady

Added on the part on marriage that this is the personal opinion of that author. I even think that this (short) part should be out entirely, as mainstream science would definitely not agree with the statements on this site. It seems more like pseudoscience to me. Sinas 10:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Nowhere is there any reference to "The Birth Order Book" or "The New Birth Order Book" by Dr. Keven Leman. Although the books have several flaws, including bias, they are worthy of note in this article and will add a more contemporary perspective. In the future, I will likely add a section for this exact purpose. JaneErrs (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Birth order AND orphaned?
What about the double whammy of birth order and being orphaned? Bdelisle 08:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My brother is the youngest child, and he is the only 1 that actually gets straight A's and hes only 3 years younger then me and im the oldest with a brother inbetween us. Im in college but I would probly be the annoying drunk since I drink all the time and had bad grades in highschool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.35.146 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Middle child
I am a middle child and nothing in this section even remotely applied to me. Everything here is completely unsubstantiated.
 * The original descriptions of birth order are simply what Adler saw as the most common traits of children in that birth position. His focus was more on a child's perceived role in the family. These descriptions have been overemphasized by pop psychology and popular culture. I don't see any theorists who suggest that birth order determines your destiny. Also, if birth order would cause a certain and fixed effect on each child, it wouldn't need to be proven anyway. It would be common sense passed down from the early days of human existence, like the fact that everyone eventually dies. CallidoraBlack (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Third external link is broken.
The third external link (http://www.soa.org/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=12024105&g11n) nets a "page not found" error message. It should be removed or corrected.

Insults
I find that this article is full of insults. It's not true, what this article says. An uncyclopedia article on the same topic would give more true information. Who agrees with me?--72.137.26.56 (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comment on "Middle Child" above. CallidoraBlack (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you be a little more specific about your objections? --Jcbutler (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Personality section
The personality section seems to be entirely filled with criticism, and I am inclined to rename that section accordingly. Any thoughts? CallidoraBlack (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This study examines how placement in the sibling group affects personality and career:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w23393

They study authors show that older siblings have better social skills and a greater chance to become managers than younger siblings. Younger siblings, on the other hand, more often run their own business. The gender composition of the older siblings also matters; it is better for a younger brother to have older sisters than to have older brothers. They also find that parents seem to engage less with children born later in the sibling group: younger siblings read fewer books, spend less time on homework and watch more TV than older siblings. Overall, the results show that the sibling arrangement is of great importance for personal characteristics and career choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.10.46.63 (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Middle Child Syndrome?
I believe information about middle children are underrepresented. I mean, Middle Child Syndrome is a serious problem in terms of middle children's personalities, so the article should at least mention something similar.
 * as middle child syndrome redirects here, yes, the article should say something about it k kisses 13:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality & Evolution
I am just wondering what mechanism the researcher proposes for an "evolved, biological" role in birth order and homosexuality. Certainly this cannot be strictly genetic, according to a correct understanding of evolution. If the effect occurs via a (even covert) cultural adaptation it shouldn't be that hard to uncover. The argument is basically preposterous and should be balanced, if it is to be maintained on this page, by a reasonable opposing viewpoint. Otherwise stick to the statistics and spare the reader the babble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.109.42 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Goebbels and Himmler
The article on Goebbels says he was born in 1897 and "had four siblings: Hans (1893–1947), Konrad (1895–1949), Elisabeth (1901–1915), and Maria (1910–1949)". That would make him the third child.

The article about Himmler says "His older brother, Gebhard Ludwig, was born in July 1898, and his younger brother, Ernst, was born in 1905." I think it would be worded differently, if he had three younger siblings.

List of well-known fourthborns
I really don't see the relevance of this list, not even from the information given under the section. Ornilnas (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither do I.  Lova Falk     talk   10:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Older brothers and homosexuality.
I think the claim that 'for every older brother a male has, his odds of being gay go up 33%' is dubious at best. That means that male with 3 or more older brothers has a 100% chance of being gay. SO, if you have three or more older brothers, you are gay, make no mistake. I just don't buy that (and I'll have to tell my friend that at least three of his younger brothers are gay...he's the oldest of 6 boys). To me, it sounds like something someone made up. To all the people upset because the article seems to be maligning them, the idea isn't that being youngest, oldest, middle, etc, means that you will be a certain way, it just means that statistically, a large percentage of people conform to that truth. If 75% of older children act a certain way, that still leaves 25% that don't meet the description. It's large enough percentage to make it a rule, but that remaining 25% still leaves a lot of people...just because you aren't the way older children are described in the article, doesn't mean that the whole theory is bunk (which it may be, of course). AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not quite - I think it means that if your chance of homosexuality was already, for instance, 9%, then the presence of an elder brother would increase it to 12%. We're using percentages of percentages. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Birth order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120817233154/http://birthorderpersonality.com:80/ to http://birthorderpersonality.com
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120090528/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/sci_tech/article3172307.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3172307.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Gender sequence
I've seen studies that claim the of gender among siblings has effects too, such female then female then male birth sequence, or male then female, etc. If sources could be found I think this would be good to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.138.230 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)