Guest guest Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 The study I heard implied (or said?) that it was environmental factors - the oldest child got the most parental attention; each successive child was reared more by siblings and parents than with adult attentiveness; thus their world view was more shaped by forces of ignorance posing as authority. Of course, most " intelligence " tests measure ability to do well in an academic setting. See Gatto for why that's flawed - basically they look for those who yield to authority and take information without question. Obviously the younger siblings would necessarily have to grow up taking " authority " with a grain of salt - it could be coming from an older sibling who is just making it up! > > > > > I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. lol Being the youngest of > > > 15.. > > > yes, I had health problems but my intelligence is certainly not > > > lacking. > > > Granted, we were a farm family eating grassfed beef, pastured pork, > > > raw > > > milk, raw butter all of which was pretty well organic. Close to a > > > Nourishing Traditions diet actually except white flour and sugar were > > > still in there, I think more so by the time I came along. So I agree > > > that the womans body could be worn out after that many kids BUT I > > > think > > > there is a lot more to the intelligence. Ah, yes, we also ranged > > > from 1 > > > year to 2 years apart. > > > > > > Then there are my own children.. they blow my mind with their > > > intelligence! All three are well ahead of " scheduled " development. > > > My 16 > > > month old is starting to compose complete sentences and frankly I'd > > > have > > > to consider him the healthiest of the three. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 lol I wasn't offended. I certainly understand the research issues and what parameters weren't covered. And, yes, the standard American diet is terrible. The neurotoxins (MSG, Aspartame) are helping to dumb down everyone. They are even putting them in baby formula. I have to agree on the self-serving. lol Jeanmarie Todd wrote: > > > Oh, , I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with my stepfather's > cited research! I think the results came from statistical analysis of > tested IQ levels of families where doubtless they didn't space the > children sufficiently for the mother to recover, and probably were > eating the Standard American Diet, which doesn't support health, much > less intelligence! The way my stepfather interpreted the results, that > there is an inherent genetic mechanism that reduces the intelligence > of each additional child, hasn't been proven. Nutrition and family > spacing weren't even considered in the original research, as reported > by my stepfather. And like I said, as the eldest son of an eldest son, > it was a bit self-serving on his part. > > I'm the third of four, myself. ;-) > Jeanmarie > > On Sep 30, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Gasper Family Farm wrote: > > > I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. lol Being the youngest of > > 15.. > > yes, I had health problems but my intelligence is certainly not > > lacking. > > Granted, we were a farm family eating grassfed beef, pastured pork, > > raw > > milk, raw butter all of which was pretty well organic. Close to a > > Nourishing Traditions diet actually except white flour and sugar were > > still in there, I think more so by the time I came along. So I agree > > that the womans body could be worn out after that many kids BUT I > > think > > there is a lot more to the intelligence. Ah, yes, we also ranged > > from 1 > > year to 2 years apart. > > > > Then there are my own children.. they blow my mind with their > > intelligence! All three are well ahead of " scheduled " development. > > My 16 > > month old is starting to compose complete sentences and frankly I'd > > have > > to consider him the healthiest of the three. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Add family dynamics to the issue. Sulloway had a MacArthur grant where he compared birth order in " revolutionary " scientists and found that the younger born were more innovative, he believes because of psychological dynamics within the family, whereby the oldest follows the accepted line put down by the father, whereas the younger asserts themselves by rebelling against accepted truths. The pattern was reversed, as I recall, when the scientists came from the lower classes, because he assumed the oldest would follow the father's view, which would be oppositional to the society's dominant view. Bill > > Like I said, even if the research my stepfather cites is correct about > a historical *tendency* for intelligence to decline with each birth in > the family, the interpretation (that first-bornes are inevitably > smarter) is probably incorrect, and the true cause is probably > nutrition and overtaxing the mother's system, not genetics. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 That makes sense to me. (My parents were also into the first big birth order book when it came out.) In my case, I'm turning out to be the nonconformist in the family (#3 of 4 from my original family, #6 of 7 if you include step-siblings), but this has been a very gradual change, no teenage rebellion ever. I'm also the only one into WAP-style eating or nutrition. ;-) Jeanmarie On Oct 1, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Bill wrote: > Add family dynamics to the issue. Sulloway had a MacArthur > grant where he compared birth order in " revolutionary " scientists > and found that the younger born were more innovative, he believes > because of psychological dynamics within the family, whereby the > oldest follows the accepted line put down by the father, whereas the > younger asserts themselves by rebelling against accepted truths. The > pattern was reversed, as I recall, when the scientists came from the > lower classes, because he assumed the oldest would follow the > father's view, which would be oppositional to the society's dominant > view. > > Bill > > > > > > Like I said, even if the research my stepfather cites is correct > about > > a historical *tendency* for intelligence to decline with each > birth in > > the family, the interpretation (that first-bornes are inevitably > > smarter) is probably incorrect, and the true cause is probably > > nutrition and overtaxing the mother's system, not genetics. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Parents get too tired and exhausted by the third child that they begin to get far less involved. The oldest child tends to be the most structured. The youngest child is basicly the runt a lot of the time. The youngest child is far more likely to have more issues. Some parents do learn from some of their past mistakes ( yes I said mistakes) so that may account for the youngest child having more skills than the older children. Being that most parents are primitive I would assume their youngest child is going to be the one with the most issues. From: Bill <lynchwt@...> Subject: Re: Sex, unhealthy? Date: Thursday, October 1, 2009, 1:20 PM Add family dynamics to the issue. Sulloway had a MacArthur grant where he compared birth order in " revolutionary " scientists and found that the younger born were more innovative, he believes because of psychological dynamics within the family, whereby the oldest follows the accepted line put down by the father, whereas the younger asserts themselves by rebelling against accepted truths. The pattern was reversed, as I recall, when the scientists came from the lower classes, because he assumed the oldest would follow the father's view, which would be oppositional to the society's dominant view. Bill > > Like I said, even if the research my stepfather cites is correct about > a historical *tendency* for intelligence to decline with each birth in > the family, the interpretation (that first-bornes are inevitably > smarter) is probably incorrect, and the true cause is probably > nutrition and overtaxing the mother's system, not genetics. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.