Nature Newsblog
« Scientists decry President Bush's veto of stem-cell bill | Main | Ancient disease resistance made us vulnerable to HIV »
Social standing within a family affects average intelligence scores.
Eldest sibblings are, on average, 2.3 IQ points more intelligent than their younger brothers and sisters, says a study of Norweigan kids. And it's not necessarily being born first that makes the difference — it's being raised as the eldest child.
Posted by Nicola Jones on June 21, 2007
Categories: | Permalink
| Comments (15)
| TrackBacks (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2848
Subscribe to this blog's feeds:
Comments
Robert Zajonc circa 1976 did extensive studies of birth order effects and found that it was not the order but the time between childrens birth that was important. A young child with older siblings is like a child living with adults and hence the knowledge imparted to it is greater than a child living with many siblings who are of comparable age (blind leading the blind).
Posted by: Douglas G. Danforth | June 21, 2007 09:57 PM
Sure, it is a fact observed in our day to day life. I think the study would be more interesting if compaired with gender of the eldest child. I have a strong opinion that eldest girls will outbeat eldest boys! Not just in IQ test, but as well in management and praticalble approaches to different issues.
Posted by: Dr. Veenanadi Kumara Adi | June 22, 2007 05:51 AM
I am the 10th of 12 children in my family, all natural single births (ie; no adoptions, half-siblings, etc). I have never been IQ tested/scored, but would like to modestly think of myself as at least of average IQ, if not slightly above average. By reverse extrapolation of this finding, my eldest siblings should be near geniuses. Do I dare tell them?
Posted by: Bert Roers | June 22, 2007 03:57 PM
It would be interesting to see how this effect would manifest in families with twins.
Posted by: Sean Matthews | June 22, 2007 04:04 PM
I love this story because as the eldest of four my sisters and brother taunt me with their memories of my trying to discipline them in various ways as I was often left in charge. Where as their eyes were often on me my eyes (memories) were on peers and parents. I'm e-mailing this to all of them. I love them dearly!
Posted by: Pat Sorani | June 23, 2007 02:30 AM
Dimitri Mendeleeiev was the 17th of 17 children. Nevertheless, his mother ( she must have been someone exceptional) had noticed his youngest son's great intelligence. In the early nineteenth century, she took him from Siberia to Moscow and later to St. Petersburg (thousands of miles away) looking for a school that could give him the required education for his great intelligence....
Posted by: Gertrudis Uruchurtu | June 23, 2007 10:13 PM
With respesct to Mr. Sean Matthew's comment--regarding how interesting it would be to see this phenomena with twins--I must concurr that fraternal twins do share similar intellectual capacities. My brother and I, both 16 years old--that is, twins--, have similar comportments in school (academically, of course). In light of this observation, nonetheless, I must pinpoint the importance of not generalizing such trends in all twins. For further discussion: do twins only share academic intellectual capacity, or do this coincidence also extend to the psychological stability/behavior?
Posted by: Andrés de la Llera Kurth | June 24, 2007 08:19 PM
It woud be interesting to relate this study with F. Sulloway studies about second siblings being more rebel. See http://www.sulloway.org/borntorebel.html
Posted by: Paulo Pinheiro | June 25, 2007 07:00 AM
The Study seems to have included males only according to the supporting materials--using Norwegian military conscript records--what would be the sesults if females were included?
Hard to think a single gender sample would pass muster these days for such a sweeping conclusion--at least the press shold note this--the NYTimes did note it in its 6/21 article-- the limited gender sample does not appear to be generally described in press accounts--Example-I see that Nature itself assumes the study includes both genders in its 6/21 article--
Posted by: john rosengren | June 25, 2007 07:31 PM
Frankly, I just dont see the point of such studies! and moreover find it odd that it gets reported as if it were a universal law - though, the sample size of this study represents less than 0.005% of current world population. I am from India and my extended family consists of around 45 first cousins (either parent's siblings children)and even within this I have several examples that contradict this finding!
[Editor's note: you're right of course that such studies are limited in scope - they need to be, in order to be properly controlled. Pls also note that the authors are only saying that ON AVERAGE elder siblings are smarter - there will of course be instances where younger siblings are the brighter ones (I'm a second child myself :)]
Posted by: Anupama | June 26, 2007 07:56 AM
I still think the contents of this study are more truly reflected by a title thats something like - Older siblings in Norway are smarter -
ON AVERAGE if my feet are packed in ice and my head in a cauldron of boiling water I am comfortable :) - incidenteally I am the oldest of 3 siblings :|
Posted by: Anupama | June 26, 2007 12:12 PM
Kristensen´s finding may have to do with the fatty acid balance of the mother´s brain. MRI studies suggest that the expectant mother´s brain shrinks temporarily while the fetuse´s brain grows rapidly since the 27th gestional week. In other words, the fetus sucks fatty acids from the mother´s brain just like it deprives calcium from the mother´s skeleton. It may take up to 36 months until the mother´s brain recoveres fully. If she gets pregnant before that, the (next) fetus may not receive enough of essential fatty acids, which are needed for optimal neurological development.
Posted by: Matti Tolonen | June 26, 2007 05:06 PM
...the study assumes IQ can be reliably measured on a quarter-million people with better than 1% individual accuracy -- and that a slight 2-3 point average difference in selected sub-groups is scientific evidence for broad societal conclusions (??)
IQ test results can easily vary more than 3 points -- even in the very same person, in repeat tests over one year.
This ain't science.
Posted by: Thorsen | June 26, 2007 08:16 PM
Very interesting! The study by F. Sulloway about second children being rebels... another wow! I read The New Birth Order Book by Kevin Leman and would recommend it to anyone interested in the above articles. My brother #3 recommended it to me. Enjoy.
Posted by: Craig Howat | July 4, 2007 03:35 AM
If there is anyone on this message board who exemplifies this study, or "disproves" it, please contact Kristen at smi4u506@gmail.com to discuss appearing on a new national television talk show!
Posted by: Kristen | July 23, 2007 10:40 PM