Birth Order - Would you please take this poll?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

First born. Do I win anything?

You shure do!

but what are you going to do with a call that doesn't get returned?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wartload 0]

Ok ... here's what this was all about.

I've been reading a book called, "The Borderlands of Science", by Michael Shermer. I'm exceptionally impressed with the way that he presents a framework for analytical thinking--the first parts of the book may be the best of all.

One of the later parts of the book, which discusses (among other things) how scientific paradigm shifts take place, uses the work of Frank Sulloway to explain how birth order may influence one's ability to accept/embrace new ideas.

In short, the first born child in a family (due to the amount of time parents spend with them, having the responsibility of younger siblings, etc.) tends to buy into the existing framework of established laws. Later-born kids are more likely to be open to new ideas.

Later-born kids are also more likely to engage in high-risk activities, too, and that was why I set up the survey.

At this writing, here are the survey numbers.

Short version:

First-born 46%
Later-born 54%
Sample - 266

The full breakdown is:

First-born child in my family 122 / 46%
Second-born child in my family 89 / 33%
Third-born child in my family 32 / 12%
Fourth-born child in my family 15 / 6%
Later than fourth-born child (poor Mom!) 8 / 3%

As was noted, we have to allow for there (possibly) being more later-born kids, on average, than first-borns. I don't really have any way to do that, because there are other factors that we'd have to look at, including average fertility rate (AFR) by geographic location, AFR by income level (assuming that perhaps not many skydivers come from very low income families), etc.

Shermer seemed to be saying that research indicates that just dividing people into first-born and later-born can produce results (identifiable traits) that are sufficiently statistically significant to clearly not be happening by chance.

I hope that you read this just before bedtime!

[d_squared431 0]

2 of 2 until my dad re-married, so now 2 out of 3.




Deedy

[SpeedRacer 1]

well, Idon't know how you'd measure this. A lot of people are the only child in their family. so they're both the first and the last born.

I was the last of three. But that's because my twin brother popped out ten minutes before me.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Mormon or Catholic.

Every sperm....is sacred, Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is neeeeded,
In your neighborhood

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[ladyskydiver 0]

Oh...yeah...a few people brought up a good point.

I'm first born on my mom's side but second born on my blood father's side. So...technically...does that make me first or second born?

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[sistaluv 0]

I'm little sista(28) and have an older brother(31)
"they say they save the best for last"

Blue Skies and Terminal Memories 4 Life

[ergirl 0]

2nd here. I have a half brother who is 6 years older (different dad), then I have 3 sisters (triplets) who are 3 years younger.

_____________________________________

"Life is not measured by your number of breaths, but by the moments that take your breath away."

[bluheelrtx 0]

Quote

Ok ... here's what this was all about.

I've been reading a book called, "The Borderlands of Science", by Michael Shermer. I'm exceptionally impressed with the way that he presents a framework for analytical thinking--the first parts of the book may be the best of all.

One of the later parts of the book, which discusses (among other things) how scientific paradigm shifts take place, uses the work of Frank Sulloway to explain how birth order may influence one's ability to accept/embrace new ideas.

In short, the first born child in a family (due to the amount of time parents spend with them, having the responsibility of younger siblings, etc.) tends to buy into the existing framework of established laws. Later-born kids are more likely to be open to new ideas.

Later-born kids are also more likely to engage in high-risk activities, too, and that was why I set up the survey.

At this writing, here are the survey numbers.

Short version:

First-born 46%
Later-born 54%
Sample - 266

The full breakdown is:

First-born child in my family 122 / 46%
Second-born child in my family 89 / 33%
Third-born child in my family 32 / 12%
Fourth-born child in my family 15 / 6%
Later than fourth-born child (poor Mom!) 8 / 3%

As was noted, we have to allow for there (possibly) being more later-born kids, on average, than first-borns. I don't really have any way to do that, because there are other factors that we'd have to look at, including average fertility rate (AFR) by geographic location, AFR by income level (assuming that perhaps not many skydivers come from very low income families), etc.

Shermer seemed to be saying that research indicates that just dividing people into first-born and later-born can produce results (identifiable traits) that are sufficiently statistically significant to clearly not be happening by chance.

I hope that you read this just before bedtime!

Unusual circumstances. . . .

First-born - profoundly retarded (lots of care required)

Second-born (me, relatively normal) developed major independance.

Independance, jump out of planes, sure, why not.

--
Jason
--
Some people never go crazy. What truly boring lives they must lead.