User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 41

  1. #11
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Of course you can turn everything around and say IQ isn't strictly innate. Afterall the verbal portions depends on education... even number logics to a certain degree do as well. But it goes against the whole idea that IQ... the G quotient should be "universal"... that culture and background shouldn't matter. I guess I'm just being too idealistic here. =/
    It largely depends on the test - the WAIS, which I'm guessing is something similar to what they used, isn't so great for that kind of a bias. A heavier g factor (gF and gC) will tend to improve on that, such as the KAIT.

    Also, IQ is heavily geared around problem solving (ie: answering questions)... so there will always be a skew towards practise. I believe that is fair - the question it answers is what you can answer at the present time and it has been shown that it remains relatively consistent through the person's life. That is, if you don't excersize your mind now or in the past, you aren't likely to improve going into the future either!

    In any case, it is important to know what type of test was used, for sure.

  2. #12
    only bites when provoked
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Crackpot theory (like the above, but at least I'll admit to it):

    More likely, it's due to physiological factors - first-born children get more resources while they are developing, whether inside or outside their mother, then the following children get less, therefore first-born children tend to be stronger, taller, more-robust, and smarter. If the first dies, the second will get nearly as much as the first due to the way things work.

    There's also the fact that first-born children get more attention, therefore they have more opportunity to learn than their younger siblings, which will split the attention with the older ones...
    I 100%, N 88%, T 88%, J 75%

    Disclaimer: The above is my opinion and mine alone, it does not mean I cannot change my mind, nor does it guarantee that my comments are related to any deep-seated convictions. Take everything I say with a whole snowplow worth of salt and call me in the morning, if you can.

  3. #13
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Another theory that popped into mind.

    It could be that parental age is a factor, either;

    1) Generation gap
    2) Absolute age 12

    Of all the theories I'm likely to give weight to, with such a large sampling size, parental age could have an impact. No, it doesn't explain why IQ jumps up if the first born dies, but does explain why there is still a downward skew for each child that comes after.

  4. #14
    / booyalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    This is logical, but isn't it funny that the media often portrays the youngest as the most intelligent?

    That's because the media is the youngest sibling in the family of society. Manipulative, irresponsible, at times entertaining, and gets away with murder.
    I don't wanna!

  5. #15
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    Crackpot theory (like the above, but at least I'll admit to it):

    More likely, it's due to physiological factors - first-born children get more resources while they are developing, whether inside or outside their mother, then the following children get less, therefore first-born children tend to be stronger, taller, more-robust, and smarter. If the first dies, the second will get nearly as much as the first due to the way things work.

    There's also the fact that first-born children get more attention, therefore they have more opportunity to learn than their younger siblings, which will split the attention with the older ones...
    It doesnt appear to be physiological. In the stats, those second bornes who's first borne elder sibling died young, then end up taking their place, IQ wise. So it appears to be upbringing and not resources.

    Perhaps it is time available devoted when very young to things like learning to read?

    -Geoff

  6. #16
    Senior Member Sahara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Interesting, does this only reflect a study of boys?

    I am the second to eldest (the eldest is female) and I have the highest IQ by a good 30-40 over all of my siblings that I know have been tested?
    "No one can be free of the chains that surround them"

  7. #17
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Families' Eldest Boys Do Better on Tests



    I guess my question here is, is this actually a significant difference? 2-3 points of IQ maximum (if that)? I suppose there is a bell curve, so a few people won't seem to improve at all while another group will show more significant improvement, but still...

    It reminds me faintly of making a large deal about how someone's cancer rate might be 50% higher than another group's... but if the chance of contracting cancer is only 0.0020% to start with, is 0.0030% really much different, practically speaking, and worth all the hype?

    I don't know about all that though. My older brother is dumb as hell though. But earns almost as same as my dad and my dad earns alot. Me and my older sister are the smartest ones in the family. However, everyone in the family says am the smartest one and yet the most useless one.


  8. #18
    only bites when provoked
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    It doesnt appear to be physiological. In the stats, those second bornes who's first borne elder sibling died young, then end up taking their place, IQ wise. So it appears to be upbringing and not resources.

    Perhaps it is time available devoted when very young to things like learning to read?
    Notice that the first died in infancy. This causes physiological changes in the mother so she will devote more resources to the second child. For instance, she will not be breast feeding her first while carrying her second, which means more resources for the second child.

    It actually makes a lot of sense. First born children are larger and healthier, and if you have no older siblings that survived infancy, you'll be larger and healthier.
    Last edited by Wolf; 08-15-2007 at 09:50 AM.
    I 100%, N 88%, T 88%, J 75%

    Disclaimer: The above is my opinion and mine alone, it does not mean I cannot change my mind, nor does it guarantee that my comments are related to any deep-seated convictions. Take everything I say with a whole snowplow worth of salt and call me in the morning, if you can.

  9. #19
    Member Alesia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    90

    Default

    I'm studying to be a Speech Language Pathologist, and it is a known fact, that the more time a parent spends talking to a child, and the child learning to speak, and then to read has a great deal to do with the development of language and IQ.

    Perhaps, if the youngest of the family isn't given the same amount of quality time from the parent, being read to, excetera, then IQ could suffer. So could language development.

    Typically, a parent has less and less time to spend on a child the more that they have. So it has been common to see the youngest of a group of, say, 12 children come in for language disorders. But they improve almost instantly (if nothing else is wrong) when given the time to learn. Otherwise, if they did not come in to see a Speech Language Pathologist or did not otherwise obtain some instruction and attention to their development, their development would suffer, and hence their IQ, even over their lifetime.

  10. #20
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    It doesn't sound like the sample size was large enough to completely validate that conclusion. It might be true, but it might not be. There's no way to know for certain one way or the other. Personally, I worry that if they could know, younger siblings might be discriminated against for being inferior. And parents might be pressured to have only one child. (Of course, some people advocate population control, but that's another topic.)

Similar Threads

  1. Birth Order and J vs P
    By FFF in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 08-30-2014, 07:56 PM
  2. Birth Order - Cliff Isaacson
    By Erudur in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 11-28-2011, 04:52 PM
  3. Birth Order and Intellectual Independence
    By Jack Flak in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 04-26-2009, 04:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO