The article suggests that birth order plays a role in level of IQ (relative intelligence of an individual). I believe there are many things that play a role in one's IQ including: the person's enviornment, association with people, curiosity, determination, the list goes on, including birth order. Of all the things affecting IQ, I beleive birth order ranks in the middle to the lower end of the scale.
It is clear that only-children do not apply to this article, however, their IQs are strengthened by certain actions. One would assume that the first born child would have the highest IQ for numerous reasons. The first born is given all of the attention, support, and love. That is until a brother or sister comes along. The knowledge of the first born is reinforced as he teaches his siblings the things he/she has learned. This pattern would continue with each younger sibling resulting in an upside down pyramid of IQ. The first born is at the inverted base, and the younger siblings follow (IQ getting smaller). This would happen if teaching and learning were up to the family, but in an advanced society we have today, there is no stopping the learning curve of an individual.
There are many opportunities for one to gain knowledge outside of family help. School is the obvious way of honing your knowledge of subjects. Those determined younger siblings have classes, professors, internet, tv, library, friends, etc. in their hands to learn whatever they want. Ultimately it comes down to the individual and his/her desire to learn and enhance their knowledge.
The article may suggest that first borns are the most intelligent based on their studies/findings, but it does not have to be and it should not be for we are in an advancing society. Every day there is something new being created, a new article published, etc. and the younger you are the more up-to-date you could be with what is going on around you.
However, IQ seems to be based on tests; those dreadful, long, stressful standarized tests. Some people are good test-takers, some people are smart, and some people are both. I do not believe tests alone should determine one's intelligence and possibe future. But this just seems to be a way society has succeeded thus far.
The first borns seem to be the cleverest, but give us time and we will break even and change the figures to new studies titled "Younger Siblings Possess Uncanny Potential"
-Written in envy of and admiration to my intelligent brothers :)
3 comments:
i too envy the high intelligence of this family... i think we all have our own individuality to bring to the table. i also think we can thank each other for that because creativity spawns further creativity..
on the case of IQ. There are a few points i dont particularly agree with. one being school. I don't believe that school is the 'obvious way of honing your knowledge of subjects.' i dont really believe in the educational value of 'school' in general (speaking of mostly elementary-high school). but it really depends on your field of interest.
i do think its a rather sad fact that society seems to base intelligence on 'letter grades' and 'test scores.' even standardized tests seem to take precedence over actual IQ tests. imo 'school' is not for everybody. but alas we live in a world where without a 'higher education' such as school, its tough to get ahead or even keep up in this world (not saying that it cant be done.) so people are forced to become somewhat 'institutionalized' in a school system that seems to only be setting them up for failure...
anywho, interesting article. i dont really buy it. but good find.
Mark Twain once said something like "I never let my schooling interfere with my education."
I happen to think that school is very valuable for some people, and largely worthless for others. People acquire and retain knowledge in vastly different ways. It really depends on what approach to learning fits you.
In any case, outside of the school environment, I don't really think IQ or standardized testing are actually relied upon that much in our society. People with demonstrable skills seem to do just fine whether they went to Harvard with perfect SAT scores or not.
-Kurt
Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge.
I also think that creativity is more important than intelligence.
And success has very little to do with either intelligence or formal education.
Schooling can simply open doors in today's society if it's used properly; it's certainly not a necessity for most career paths, though essential for some (like medicine, law, etc.) And yes, I'd also agree that schooling is a form of indoctrination, as well as a political and business tool that has a tendency of stifling one natural creative instincts.
'Letter grades' have virtually no relation to one's intelligence.
And I don't think that sibling order has anything to do with intelligence, but if it does, intelligence has little to do with how one uses it, nor what people are capable of doing with their lives.
There are also many different types of intelligence (c.f. Howard Gardner's work), not all of which are measured by standard IQ tests. People tend to excel at one or more of these types and may never score well on an IQ test.
-metro
Post a Comment