First born children have higher IQs

Me being an only child, I wonder if my parents knew that I couldn't be topped, in terms of mental ability, so stopped it there.

Interesting article.

I too am an only child, so being smarter than nothing is a great confidence booster.

I am the second of three children, and my IQ is considerably higher than those of my two brothers - by eleven and fifteen points. My son and my daughter, born four years apart, both have exactly the same high IQ as myself. So there is no absolute in the levels of intelligence according to the order in which children are born, by any means.

I'm the youngest of three so I completely disagree with this though I did have to get my brothers to explain the long words...

No. I may not be the brightest out there, but myparents had three, and we get smarter as wego down. Science only ever wants to claim stuff like that.

I think I agree with that statement cause my mums brother was older and had a very high IQ even though she's brainy as well. My brother is older than me and he's more intelligent than I am.

Well, then it just depends. There's no real answer in general for it. I'm the youngest,I'm not thesmartest in the world, but I'm still physically fitter and smarter than my sister and brother.

...but the worst at typing with spaces!

areyoureallysteadIhadn'tnoticedha

I am a middle child of three and I've always had the feeling that having kids is like making pancakes. The first one is kind of soft and its your test pancake. Mistakes were made and you have to live with it. Second pancake comes out pretty good and you're liking what you're seeing; however, third times a charm? Third pancake you leave it on the heat a little too long, walk out of the kitchen, and it comes out burnt due to not paying close attention to the stove. So while the second isn't perfect, it does have almost all the things you're looking for in a pancake.

yezzzzzzzzz, I'm the oldest, take that, brother!

Stuntbunny....I'm the 3rd generation! I'm not burnt or the worst of the three! :)

(the second's the worst, if I'm honest)

Although, there must be sumthin wrong with me, I'm the most rebellious, less religious, and open to new experiences.... hmmm

"dominant, religious, conscientious and neurotic. They earn more, are more responsible, anxious and organised, and they stick to the rules"

Out of all of this it is true only that I earn more, (organized and responsible?? maybe when I get old... maybe)

Don't wanna have children, I'm adopting a kid or two maybe when I'm 40.
and I ain't lookin for a long lasting relationship either...

Haha I can't wait to show this to my little bro!

Well...I'm first born, and at least half of the words describing first/ middle/ last children are applicable to me, and the other half to my sister.
Perhaps this study speaks of vague connections, but I can't see how it's anywhere near dead on.

Being the first born, my mom was a bit stricter with me so I agree with stuntbunny in the fact that the first is sort of a testing ground. I think my parents wanted to see how much they could do for me. 2nd child came along and they sort of slacked. Not too much to become a bad parent, but not too little that my younger sister would become a tyrant. I think 2nd child around, they were just exhausted from trying to raise me to the best of their ability.

My younger sister is quite smart though (her grades don't show it but she is) but I think it's because I'm 8 years older than her. It doesn't hurt that the person you look up to is in college and living on their own in a new and different city. She wants to do everything I do so I'm sure that helps steer her in the right direction.

They can't have tested all (for the sake of keeping things simple, I'm gonna use 3 kids) 3 of the kids as the same time, because it would be obvious, if you had, say, 2 years between each child, then clearly the 6 year old oldest childs gonna be smarter than the 4 year old middle child who'll be smarter than the 2 year old youngest.

You'd have to test them individually at a set age, so like, you wait for the oldest to reach 10, then test him, wait 2 years and test the middle child, wait 2 years then test the youngest child. If they carried out the test in any other way, then the research is flawed.

Not that proffessional scientists are dumb enough to not think of that.

I beg to differ. my older brother is a little "slower" than me by repeating the same mistake about a dozen times. but, I still like him a lot.

I'm the youngest of four, and my IQ is 143, which is pretty good, especially if this study is true. But then again, my eldest brother is a pure, unadulterated genius. I'm talking next level smart - way smarter than me, so maybe there's something to this. Surely diet, exercise, environment, peers, schooling and so on have some sort of effect as well?

I'm dumb.

its soo true, i'm the oldest and i beat my younger brother at every hurdle in life.

As the youngest of three I have to say I disagree on the grounds that, thats just ridiculous! There are so many factors involved in assessing ones IQ also mannerisms, social status, experience, so does that mean just because their older they know more basically? I know a 4 year old thats just starting to read a habit my 67 year old grandmother failed to obtain.

"People who use Current.com have higher IQ's." apparently.

Someone should do a study on THAT.

This sucks. I have an older brother.

50 bucks says everyone who clicks "I Like It" is a first born.

Really? I'm the middle child of seven and I have the highest. My spouse is a first-born and is the dumbest in his family (siblings). Guess we're the lucky exceptions?

Oh great... now my already pompous sister has more reason to be pompous!

This study over-generalizes too much. I'm a first born and I find that I have traits from all 3 generalizations. I'm the least religious of the three (as in not at all!) and probably the most rebellious - always itching to upend the rules. The middle sister of my family is the joker and the most extroverted. The youngest sister is the most studious, quietest, sticks to rules and the peacemaker. As a family, we're all over the place. We're proud that we don't fit neatly into stereotypes!

As for the IQ thing, I suspect it's because I spent half of my formative years in Asia before my family and I immigrated to the states. The schools are a lot harder there. I think if my sisters had the same schooling as I did, they would do just as well on IQ tests. Which calls into question the effectiveness of the IQ test itself: Does it really measure genetic capability when so many environmental factors can influence the test taker's outcome?

StuntBunny, as a third child I must agree, I'm the pancake who was left on a little too long. My parents have not disciplined me as much as my older brothers and I have picked up more severe cases of my brothers' bad habits. I'm sure my brothers also have higher IQs than me, though I work harder, so I get the best grades.

Intelligence is so hard to define...

Interesting. I also read in my psychology text book that birth order also affects the degree to which a person is creative. I wonder whether nature or nurture has a more profound effect on this disparity...

Doh! No wonder im so dumb.

makes sense to me. im the third of my dads and the first of my moms. i find myself a balance of being a first born and a middle. cool article.

There is no way that genetics have anything to do with birth order. It's not like you body screams 'Hey! This is the first kid- make it smart!' The way you are raised has everything to do with it! The first kid has to be the smartest because the parents have NO idea what they are doing. The first born is the first to do chores- and almost always the one to do the hardest chores as parents view each consecutive child as too young to do such hard things. I have told my mom about what she had me do at 10 ( lack-key kid, babysat 2 younger siblings, cleaned the house) She adamantly denies this because after three kids she now understands that a 10 year old is NOT supposed to be doing these things. The lower on the birth order totem you are, the better the parents and therefore the need to have a higher IQ is lowered. As a first born child you need everything you have at your disposal to survive first time parents- and that includes a high IQ.

I think this would be more about breeding vs. genetics or birth order. All my siblings have strengths in different areas. My oldest sister is the most academic and ambitious, but the rest of us make up for it in other areas.

i have to disagree with this...
my older sister???

yeah, i don't agree

Don't agree with what?

There should be studies about children with half-siblings. I am the oldest of 5 children, but I have a different father than the rest of my brothers and sisters. I have the highest IQ, but the third oldest is only trailing me by 2 points. Science should study the more non-traditional family arrangements and see if there's any correlation between IQ and birth order there.

psh, IQ. it's just a number that elitists can surround themselves with. everyone is brilliant.

Wonder if it works the same if you are the only baby of your parents relationship. Like I have brothers and sisters but from different parents, just either same mom or same dad. But I find this study so interesting, sort of like hey you guys gave all the good genes to your first kid, can you imagine reading this if you were like your mom and dad's 12th kid...Sorry you were 12 kid, good luck in life! ;-)

My child who will also be an only child has already skipped a grade and is very smart. Hmmm, good thing I am stopping at one! I am kidding - I don't buy into this study.