how come first born tend to be the smartest of the siblings?

Question

i know this rule does not apply to every family. but lately i've spending time with different families and it seems mine included that the first born tend to be smarter and more together than their siblings. any insight on this phenomenon? i'm looking for all posibilities not just common knowledge such as the first born babies get more attention because they are the first and this facilitates more faster growth and learning creating the foundation of their intelligence.
one out of the box idea i had is that generally speaking when a woman has her first baby she is more likely to be physiologically at her peak and when she has her second or third, her body may have hit a threshold and consequently underperform having an affect on the childs DNA. just a thought. i'm just curious to know what everyone else thinks.

Answer 1

not true

Answer 2

It has nothing to do with ability. If there is any kind of trend where the eldest is more advanced or "smarter", it's because the first child feels the pressure to accomplish milestones first. When subsequent children come along, they may feel less pressure to achieve said milestones, and they may have a more lackadaisical attitude. For instance, I am the younger of two, and I am by no means less intelligent than my sister (at least in my opinion), but growing up, I never felt the urge to get straight A's, etc. My attitude was that my sister had already been there, done that, accomplished it perfectly. I explored different avenues, like art and music, despite the fact that I was just as capable academically. I was slower to talk and walk when I was a toddler, and this is partly because (according to my mother), my sister was constantly carrying me, translating for me, etc.
I am a schoolteacher and I've noticed this phenomenon to a certain extent, but I would never describe the eldest as being "smarter" than younger siblings... just more eager.

Answer 3

I have four children, ages 3 months, 4 years, 7 years, and 11 years. As of right now, I would have to say that the 4 yr old is quite a bit more advanced than the other were at his age. If you ask me, I think that it's the other way around. The more children you have, the more role models for the youngest child. They'll see all that their siblings can do and try harder to be on the same level. I think that's what's going on with my bunch.

Answer 4

You must be a first born child.

Rarely have I found that the first born is the smartest. More often than not, the youngest has a little more on the ball because he or she has more attention from the parents as well as the older siblings. They talk earlier because their siblings talk to them as well as the adults in the family.

As for being smarter, your rank in the family has little to do with it, it's more contact with outside influences that gives a person a little bit of an advantage to learning.

Answer 5

I read somewhere that first born children seem to be smarter because parents spend more one-on-one time with the older child than they can with any subsequent children. Logically speaking, when you only have one child to care for, you can foster all sorts of time and energy on that child. But when your time must be shared among three or four (or even only two) children, the younger one, by default, spends more time with peers than with adults. At least that's why first borns and onlies tend to talk sooner.

Answer 6

It's not DNA; it's environment. And I'm not sure it's intelligence, but the application of abilities (ie. they're more traditionally successful, on average).

First of all, most of the time a first-born will spend in the company of adults. On a daily basis, the first-born will be around adults. Therefore, the average "level" of the humans the baby interacts with will be higher than that of a child with older siblings.

Second, as pointed out above, the child will have more exclusive attention. As a firstborn, you will have at least a nine-month headstart (and, usually, much more) as far as one-on-one attention for long periods of time. Therefore, you will be exposed to more stimulation, higher concept, etc.

Third, as a first-born, it will be easier for your parents to bring you into adult situations. With only one child, we bring our daughter to the museums, out to restaurants with us, to work, etc. With a second, I think the logistics would be much harder to plan.

Finally, first-borns often feel a lot more pressure to succeed. Not only are they expected to "be more mature", and to "know better", the parents often impart their insecurities on the firstborn to "be all s/he can be". Parents may try to coach them onward, and subsequent children may be compared (favorably or not) to the firstborn. By the second, they tend to be more relaxed, and realize they don't need to do everything "right".

I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with a woman's age. Most of the first-borns I know tend to be the most ACCOMPLISHED (not necessarily the smartest, and not in "alternative" ways), and they come from mothers of all ages (from 21 to 35).

Answer 7

I believe that the first born takes on the role in the family as the "hero"....They are expected to be a good role model for the younger siblings..I don't believe it is always true that they are smarter but more focused does seem to be the case...It is a big responsibility to be the hero of a family

Answer 8

I think it depends on the time and effort the parents spend in raising their children. Most parents tend to be more careful with their first born since they don't want anything to go wrong, which it doesnt, and with the other children they are very aware of that fact and they tend to be more carefree.

Answer 9

I feel that mabey it has somthing to do with the parents. Like in my case when my parents had my sister they were totally not ready for a child. She she grew up learnign things on her own and being very independent. then after i came along they were still not ready for a child, But my sister took the responsiblity of taking care of me. Which i feel just made her a more responsible put togther person. She felt like she had to be that way for me.Its probly not like this in every family but that how it was in mine.

Answer 10

No, I don't think the dna gets stale, I think, if it's the case, either the parents spent more time with the baby or they're just smarter.

I've got four, and they're all smart -- and not indecending order.

Answer 11

My brother is exactly 10 years older than me, and I'd say he's pretty smart. I think my parents taught him more than they taught the rest of us. I come from a family where the older kids are to 'raise' the younger ones.