Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I think the middle kid turns out the best.
    
    My mother was the middle kid, and I think she's the only one of
    her family who isn't nuts.
    
    My father was the middle son (and middle kid). I don't like the
    way his siblings turned out.
    
    guess which I am? :-)
    
    The middle kid learns humility alot quicker, because the  middle
    kid is not the pampered "baby" nor is the middle kid the first to
    get everything.  The middle kid tends not to be as spoiled as the
    ones who came first or last.  Oh, personally, I think that the middle
    kid learns to share better. This is what I see from experience.
    
    But then, I'm a little biased...:-)
    
    the mad chinaman
    

I remember a pshycology class in college that talked about relationships
a bit. In short it said that an oldest male child with sisters tended
to get along better with a woman who had older brothers, and vice versa.
It all made sense at the time. Since I have 3 older brothers and no sisters,
I tend to get along much better with men in general and most of my closest
friends are men.

Bahama Mama

    	Re: .0  I would have to disagree with you when you say that
    		the oldest child assumes much of the responsibility
    		for the younger children.  Not in my family anyway.
    		Also, my parents were divorced when I was very young
    		and it forced ALL of us to grow up faster, not just
    		the older children.  
    
    		I have two sisters and one brother.  We fought like
    		cats and dogs through the seperation, the divorce,
    		and my mother's remarriage.  Now we are starting to
    		communicate as peers.
    
    		To answer your question about family order and the
    		effect on relationships, my personal feeling is that
    		it all depends on how you were brought up.  Not every
    		kid that was born first gets more responsibility or
    		grows up faster.  Also, the youngest isn't always
    		pampered or spoiled.  I do realize that there is a
    		pattern in most families however, but I think that
    		is changing.
    
    		Just my 2 cents...
    
    							Carol

    Sometimes the baby responds to all the pampering by becoming
    fiercely independant and suspicious of any attempt to boss
    or smother.  I'm the youngest of four kids.  I'm the only one
    who does not have loans from my parents right now.  And you've
    seen my views on smothering relationships - I'm a bit touchy
    about that.  My oldest sister is a *very* control-oriented
    person.  The next oldest, another sister, used to be very
    "let it flow"ish person - now she's becoming more and more
    conservative.  My brother is fairly self oriented, but is
    not selfish, if you get the distinction.  And me - I don't
    think I'll try to describe myself - let my other notes do that.
    
    --Louise

    Some years ago I remember reading an article about birth order
    and its effect on marriage. The reltionship between an oldest
    sister of sisters and the youngest brother of brothers was
    supposed to be a good one, (which is what my husband and I are.)
    I also remeber that the youngest brother of sisters was about
    the "worst" to be married to since they tend to expect to 
    be doted on and waited on. :-)
    
    Bonnie

    I was just reading an article on this subject this morning in Seventeen
    Magazine (I was in an emergency room waiting room and there wasn't
    much to pick from!).  According to the author of the article, who
    had apparently researched the matter and studied various surveys,
    *only* children tend to be the happiest and most well-adjusted adults
    since they received the most undivided attention from their parents.
     Also, according to this article, an unusual number of people in
    Who's Who are either the oldest child or an only child.  They said
    an oldest child is more likely to be successful in career and school.
     This is not because they have been forced to bear more responsibility
    but because they received so much specialized attention before the
    other kids came along.  I have no idea whether this is true, but
    just thought I'd pass it along since I just read it this morning.
    
    Lorna
    

    A long time ago, in a psychology part of a Politics degree course, I
    remember hearing of some US studies after WWII, on responses to stress,
    anxiety, and birth order.
    
    Upshot of those studies was that first-born or older sons, anyway,
    tended to be more anxious and less able to cope with stress in
    isolation (few volunteered to be fighter pilots, I think that was the
    starting point of that line of enquiry).   First-born sons did seem to
    be as well able to cope with stress in groups (bomber crews, infantry,
    etc), as did younger siblings.   I think a peace-time corollary
    was that few elder sons took up (solo) race-car driving.
    
    Explanation offered was that older children were more protected
    by parents, were more exposed to parental anxiety symptoms (in the
    early years of family life), but got status later by being the older
    child in a family group.   Younger kids had a more even experience
    - less protection from "blase", experienced, parents, alternative
    interaction with older children as well as with parents, at home,
    and no status re-inforcement from being the "older child".
    
    Anyone heard of these studies?   Have they been discredited like
    other academic theories I recall from the 60s?

    This probably stuck in my head because it seemed to fit my case - I'm
    an older brother, neurotic as possible, while my younger brother (only
    two of us) has similar intelligence (fairly high) and social skills
    (fairly low), but is otherwise much more confident and, these days,
    materially successful. 
    
    I'm doing OK myself, but the comparision is striking.   Certainly, my
    parents had some initial problems starting up a family/home, which I
    was aware of - most had been resolved by the time my brother reached
    school age. 
    

    
    
    	Gee, I'm the eldest son and I'd LOVE to be a fighter pilot AND
    a race car driver.. It's just $$ that is holding me back.. :-)
    
    						mike

    Yeah, that sounds 180� around from what I'd heard, not that I believe
    any of it.
    
    	Jon 

    When reading the base note, must first thought was... what does the
    chronological order of the child mean?  Is this kid get marked from
    the minute he/she is born until the end of their lives?  I dislike
    statitical data like this, I'm not directing this toward the author,
    it was a good question.  But I was told my kid was going to have
    problems in school because *it* showed that kids of working mothers
    had more difficulty in school,  but then *it* turned around and
    said that kids of working mothers are doing o'k, there not experiencing
    the problems they thought they orginally would, but inturn ended
    up being responsible children.  But now *its* telling me my kid
    is going to have problems because she is an only child, I don't
    thinks so, its how you bring up your child that molds them to be
    responsible adults.
      
    
                       

    Reminds me of a phrase I've heard, " 'THEY SAY' are some of the
    biggest liers in the world."
    
    --Louise

    You should remember that 80% of all statistics are made up on the fly
    to "prove" some point. 
    
    re .12:
    
    "Phallacy," eh? ;-)
    
    	Jon

    Re: .10
    
    Who is quoting statistics?  Not me!  I was simply voicing an
    opinion based on my own experience and what I have read of
    others.
    
    I find it hard to argue with the notion that order in the family
    doesn't mean SOMETHING.  For example, the first child gets 100%
    of the parents' attention, the second and subsequent children
    don't.  That must have SOME effect.  Also, depending on the
    age spacing, the older child may be given responsibility for the
    younger children - that must have some effect too.
    
    I never meant to claim that the trends I mentioned were absolutely
    positively applicable to every child ever born - you and I know
    better than that.  But I do believe on the whole that there IS
    a difference.
    
    					Steve

RE: .0 and .10

I agree that it is how the child is brought up that determines how
she/he will end up when they're an adult.

From my own experience, I beleive you'll understand why I feel this way.

From day one to year 14, I lived with my "real" parents.  "Real" meaning
my maternal parents.  My "real" father was and still is mentally
disturbed (no, not retarted, just psychotic).  He is selfish and abusive.
He considers only himself when making decisions which could affect his
life as well as the lives of those around him.  He beleives that the 
only true answers to questions of life are those that he has in his own 
mind.  All other opinions are irrelevant.  My "real" mother was an 
alcoholic and a drug abuser.  She used to swallow 2 or 3 valume and wash
it down with half a litre of wine, three to four times per day.  I'm 
sure the only reason the doctor ever gave her prescriptions was so she'd
stop bugging him.  She used to think that was O.K. too !  Prescription
drugs from a certified doctor.  Drug abuse ? no, not her !  My "real"
mother always complained of headaches (you'd wonder why, right?), had
constant diahrea and spent most of her daytime and night-time hours
in her bedroom, sleeping or knocked out.  

When I was six, my father decided that he was going to have his own
bedroom.  He turned the guest room into his bedroom and put a lock on
the door.  My parents lived that way for the next eight years, until
finally, they separated.

I was the youngest of 2 boys.  My older brother decided to move out of the
house (when all of us were still physically there), at the tender age of
17.  He decided that he had enough with home life, and that living poor
and by himself was better than living materialistically comfortably and
miserable.  When my parents split up I had to make a decision on who I 
wanted to live with.  I decided that I would live with my father since
getting some attention (even bad), was better than no attention at all.

Two months before my fifteenth birthday, a miracle happened.  I met a woman
at the high school I was attending who befriended me.  This woman was 
taking grade 13 refresher courses before going back to University to become
a psychologist.  In the meantime, my father was taking his frustrations
out on me about every other night.  I kept making excuses at school like,
"I fell down the stairs" or "You woudn't beleive it but the fridge door
just swung open and hit me in the face".  It was quite obvious I was 
lying.  This woman began an investigation of my personal life on her own,
and one day decided that I should come and live with her family.

I jumped at the opportunity, and went from the youngest child in one
er, family, to the oldest child in another.  I had to learn a whole
new set of rules that were now being enforced on me, and had to abide by
if I wanted to stay.  My "new" mother was kind, understanding and gave
expert advice (she hasn't been wrong yet).  My "new" father was unselfish,
caring, and considered those he loved before considering himself.  It took
7 years to change my behaviour patterns from those that had been taught
to me in younger years.  It wasn't until after this length of time that
my "new" mother said "Darrell, I think of you now as one of my own sons.
I only wish I had been your maternal mother.  If I had been, I wouldn't
have had to go through all those years of changing with you!"

Myself ?  I think I turned out O.K.  I have a good education, a solid
family life, a successful and self-rewarding career and have developed
good personal relationships over the past few years.  My "new" mother 
beleives that I would have ended up in jail by now if I had stayed with
my "real" father.

So, I beleive it is how the child is raised that makes the difference
in how they end up in life.  I do not think it matters if the child
is the youngest, or the oldest.  I was both.

    Re: .14
    
    What you described when you said in your note, I believe supports
    the view that how you bring up your child is how they will turn
    out.  If you insist your oldest child care for the rest of the children
    in the family they may inturn take on the responsible role for the
    children, which I don't know is good or bad.  I have a friend whose
    mother insisted she care for the two youngest children in the family,
    because she was the oldest, I am talking about complete responsiblity
    for these kids.  This was a big burden for her to carry, which
    eventually caused much resentment towards her mother.  I guess I
    wasn't suprised when she left her parents house when she was 17.
    When she was 18 she went to her parents house and told them she
    was getting married next week.  I don't think because she was the
    oldest that this detoriation of there relationship occurred, I believe
    is was the mothers descision to insist her daughter assume the adult
    role of parent at such an early age.