Family – The new evidence that eldest children develop higher I.Q.'s than their siblings has intensified the debate over two of the most stubborn questions in social science: What are the family dynamics that enhance intelligence? And can they--and should they--be changed?
This may be accurate on the average, however let me just say that my older sister is not the brightest academically person in the world. She does have some street smarts though, so I am proud of her for that. Alls I remember when I was a kid is that I was in Calc and she was struggling with algebra. We were both seniors at the same time. I think sports and socializing were more important to her. But even so, my IQ is a recorded 40 points higher then hers and she is two years older then me.
Now having said all that I she was the one who used to come home and teach me what she learned in school when she was in kindergarten and 1st grade, so I do owe her a lot of gratitude for making me love math. I was reading at 3 and doing multiplication at 4. I started kindergarten when I was 4, and I was 16 as a senior in high school.
your sister teaching you what she learned in kindergarten and first grade is probably why you were able to surpass her later on.
My theory is that parents, grandparents, etc. have more time to spend with the oldest child. As more children come along, there is less time and money.
Plus the younger kid gets the hand me down educational toys with the missing pieces. And the more kids in the family, the more pieces that are missing by the time number five or six comes along. poor youngest!
That all being said, same thing in my family. The older sisters taught the three younger ones to read before kindergarten. We were always at least three grades ahead of everyone else in our class.
It really doesn't matter what the IQ number is. What matters is how much one uses their intelligence. Some people with a high IQ are idiots. Other people with lower IQs use every single point and go farther.
I thought it was "politically incorrect" to even mention the letters IQ. If we can make valid comparisons to family members using IQ, is is also valid to make comparisons to different races or ethnic groups, using IQ?
except that you will get sued for making "racist" comments because you make statements on certain aspect about race which can bring hurtful feelings, so it is "race"-ist. Too bad siblings do not signify any difference in social status, you can't make any discriminatory claims about that.
I didn't even insinuate that there are differences between races or ethnic groups or which groups may score higher. So please don't sue me. I would have to sell some of my cattle. Of course I would sell the dumber ones first.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. (Unlike differences between racial groups, "siblings" are members of the same grouping.)
I guess farmerman brings good point about the validity of making comparisons of races based on IQ if the sample groups are catergorized based on race and a statistical trend of some kind can be demonstrated. In fact, the relevance of scientific methods should not be limited to any particular kind because science generally assumes the laws of nature applies equally among any physical object. However, regardless of its validity or accuracy, it is about a race and it is certainly hurtful, so it is deemed to be "race"-ist.
The point is that the article attempts to invalidate the argument that differences in IQ between various racial groups is based on genetic factors. Clearly, siblings are members of the same "genetic" group, therefore, if differences exist in IQ then those differences would be attributable to factors other than genetics (the old nature v. nurture argument).
The article did not mention anything about race. It is only farmerman who brought it up. I don't think the article was trying to negate the genetic factor in IQ but only validate the argument that family dynamics do have an impact on IQ development. Where gene pool attributes to IQ was not addressed in the article. On the other hand, it is logical to hypothesize that genetic makeup is dynamic to some extent rather than permanently etched in stone, so the nurture effect can appear through the mechanisms of genetic modifications.
The racial argument is always implicit in any discussion of IQ (that's why farmerman brought it up); vis a vis is IQ an objective or subjective measurement? Put another way, the IQ argument asks what is the nature of intelligence? The article suggests that "family dynamics" have a major impact on IQ. It would then follow that social and other environmental factors, rather than racial and/or gender differences determine IQ. The argument thus invalidates the measurement of IQ between races, and defines it as a purely subjective measurement within a given group sharing the same genetic characteristics, as between siblings.
It would be stretching too far if it carries such implication. The study did not entail such powerful generalization. In fact, the article was not clear on whether the study measured the progress of IQ development between siblings throughout their childhood. It seems merely a snapshot data of IQ scores taken their sibling order into consideration. Assuming that the merely 3 IQ points difference does have its statistical significance (I hope they did a student t-test to confirm that), whether all siblings started with the same IQ at birth and progressed into differential IQ development due to family orders would still be a big assumption. In principle, this study kept genetic parameter constant and vary the sibling parameter to observe its effect on IQ. Since genetic parameter is not a variable in this study, one can't draw any conclusion about its effect or non-effect as it varies. Thus it cannot imply anything about race.
A study of family order effect on IQ has its use of understanding how IQ can be improved by "engineering" the family dynamics. A study of racial effect on IQ serves no good purpose except spurring more racial discomfort. For sure it is unethical to "engineer" racial gene pool. So back to the same argument, statements on IQ about race is "race"-ist.
Bottom line the article is about birth order in one family not race...someone just wanted to bring up race b/c they knew it would stoke a fire. IQ is a little of nature and mostly nuture, so i guess we are assuming if you were brought up in the same household you have had the same nurturing. I think they with the oldest and the typical role of the first born as the protector, leader, and teacher (mind you im the youngest of both my parents sets of children) of the younger siblings that it would seem like they were smarter. me and my bro were both the top of our class, and college educated, b/c we were raised by someone who valued education. My half siblings did not fair as well, if they finished high school at all they are all in dead end careers.
Questions of race are always on the table. It's naive to believe otherwise.
funny to trace back your first comment:
"I think you're comparing apples to oranges. (Unlike differences between racial groups, "siblings" are members of the same grouping.)"
and now you fall back to the same false comparisons. Yes, people compare races, but not in this particular article. You need to be clear what you are talking about. Don't flip-flop.
IQ is one thing, but there are many who believe in multiple intelligences. Such as:
Emotional Intelligence (EQ), Physical Intelligence, Spiritual Intelligence and Social Intelligence.
And concerning Social Intelligence. Let's face it: people with high IQs don't necessarily have a high degree of social ability.
"Spiritual Intelligence" = oxymoron?
I would equate spiritual intelligence with people who seem to have good instincts and are in tune with their surroundings like native peoples or perhaps even artists. Its just another way to observe the world which is difficult amid the chatter rich environments we live with in modern society. Its a kind of sensitivity to nature and the rythms of life that many of us don't seem to have because of the pressures and obligations of modern society.
I thought IQ wasnt about how much you know, but how well you are able to cognitively able to process things...obviously this would mean that you'd have to know some things scholastically but if youre unable to apply them, what good is it. And ppl i think have all different kinds of IQ's and none of them are in perfect balance, somebody is going to do one thing better than another. I think when it comes to scholastic intellect ppl judge it negatively, because let's face it, if youre REALLY smart its enviable, and usually that opens a lot of doors and means a lot of success, they dont have to play well in the sandbox w/others they got the goods to get the job done and get it done well.
Isnt there another intelligent for when youre are real artistically inclined?
It's really funny to me that there's a news story about what causes I.Q. to develop faster in a country where the medium I.Q. is 100.
Intelligence has nothing to do with what order you were born, it has to do with how you are taught from an early age. The brain is a device of conditioning, adjusting according to stimulus. Influencing a higher I.Q. comes from influencing a curiosity in learning.
I have an I.Q. of 165, my younger brother brother has the same. Age has nothing to do with it.
Perhaps the word you seek is median CronusLord.
Interestingly, the IQ tests of 3 decades ago are now "too dumb" for our current population: indeed on those tests the national IQ scores were creeping upward.
I do recall a study published about 5 yrs ago documenting this and if I recall correctly, the current scores were "re-adjusted" so that the average scores have returned to 100...
While I respect your views that age or birth order are not important variable, I do think it is interesting to notice that in this publication it appears that this is a new finding, which, pending replication may be something we can learn from.
Interesting conversations above. Thanks!
Yeah, you're right, I did mean median. My mistake. It may be something that we can learn from, sure, but I just think that it can't really be simplified that way. It tends to be different for everyone, I find. Like the rare instances of geniuses born from average I.Q. families with little stimulus.
For me and my brother, I think it was the fact that our father was a very intelligent man, so we strived to make him proud. And in that, we found our stimulus for cusiosity. We're probably some of the smartest to come out of our family, especially considering that retardation happened alot in my mom's side of the family. We had less than a 50/50 chance of turning out the way we did, considering family involvement.
My school system gave us IQ and achievement tests ad nauseum. I'm the youngest of 6 and my IQ is more than 40 points higher than any of my siblings. Exceptions are expected but leaves me to wonder about the tests and the test takers in regards to motivational factors affecting results. I assume that my siblings and I are innately alike (unless I was adopted or switched in the hospital ward...neither of which happened) so why the discrepancy in the scores? I've often wondered about this and haven't come up with an explanation.
I think it is a waste of time to know what your IQ is. Does it automatically make someone more intelligent because they have a 136 IQ? Smart people are those who use what they have got and strive for more, regardless their IQ. Dumb people don't use what they have and do nothing with their lives. The numbers are useless.
like i said before, iq is only relevant to children(dealing with actual age in comparison to mental age)it means nothing in adults.
yet i disagree, there are many genius level intelligences that do nothing with there lives.
Intelligence has its effect at all ages, not just to children. Intelligence has nothing to do with what you know, it has to do with how you acquire and retain knowledge, and your processing speed of that knowledge and its applications. Compare an adult with a 180 IQ to an adult of the same age with a 90 IQ. You'll see a big difference.
Does it automatically make you more intelligent? Yes, it does. I.Q. doesn't gauge how much you know, it gauges your ability to acquire and retain knowledge, and it guages your processing ability concerning that knowledge. You're right, a high I.Q. that isn't used is a waste. But it doesn't change the fact that it does make you more intelligent. It's not a matter of moral ethics, it's a matter of scientific fact.
I guess I should have said "Does it automatically make someone smarter because they have a 136 IQ". That was what I was getting at. I understand the intelligence thing. But you do get my point about people who don't use that ability. To me the measurement is useless. You could easily have a higher IQ than I and I may have to try harder to retain information, but I don't need that information because regardless, I am still going to keep trying. But you already got that that's what I was saying.
The book "Born To Rebel" makes the case for almost all revolutionary jumps forward for the human race have been made by laterborns. Firstborns have too much respect for authority to ever rebel against the status quo (required for new paradigms). What mommy & daddy told firstborns was right and therefore authority is never to be questioned. Then the firstborn tries to force these authoritarian ideologies on siblings and the laterborns rebel for the rest of their lives!
Supposedly, the Knights Templar sent their firstborn into the church where unquestioning respect for authority bolsters church traditions. Templars sent their secondborn son into the military where questioning authority and onesself might keep one from charging off into a trap, taking your men and perhaps your nation with you...
How many in the current administration besides George W. are firstborn authoritarians with high IQ and no sense at all?
IQ is just one type of intelligence. There are different types of intelligences. Social,language, logical,musical,spatial, intrapersonal. You can have a high IQ but no social awareness, inability to speak in public, no common sense, inability to keep a beat, play a sport or even know your own feelings and thoughts. Success in America isn't all related to IQ. Parents are much better served to be taught how to determine what type of intelligence their child has and help the child develop in those areas.
IQ isn't a type of intelligence, it's a measurement of intelligence. What you're talking about is knowledge. Knowledge and intelligence aren't the same thing. IQ means Intelligence Quotient, your ability to acquire and retain knowledge, and your processing speed in its appliction.
And success in America isn't related to IQ at all. It's not even related to talent. It's related to money and social status.
"And success in America isn't related to IQ at all. It's not even related to talent. It's related to money and social status."
As much as I want to say you are wrong, I can't. To me those things do not represent success, and it would go against everything I believe if I had to jump on that path to get me there, yet others would see me as successful if I did have money and social status and I find that somewhat sad...
Not a member? Sign-up today!
nopatacious
shawnmartinez1960
MacBookForMe
popperous
rontravel
daviant701973
gen22
uncogito
richwklein
qilla
MiraJane
msaleem
crown482
lenseview
Catie
macallan
gardopal
empire365
gekeeer
yonti
Curley Zark
ActivityTesting
saltyveruca
iamtheclerk
qoniz14
xoxo15zo
ani44wo
gloryon
ab273ba
lvrofwolves
aliersenerol
moortiez
ClimRashell
TheAttacks
avpd85
hossstyle
Anatoliks
SoftwareTricks
TOtheMOON
Natalie1183
mark_brown
Rigel
carsreview
gpsreview
esmLIVE
dadesider
Redneck
Aidenag
62)
I don't know about our IQs but my kid brother is smarter than me academically.
However, in practical areas of life he is like "the absent minded professor".
I am still in the top % of my school and university in scholarly performance, although inferior to my brother's performance. However, I am better organized in real life whereas he is better organized in academics.
More than anything I think this is due to the fact that the eldest child gets piled with responsibilities so they have to "grow up" faster. More of the older child's mental "resources" go towards learning to take command and be a good leader.
I out did older brother and sis in academics by a long shot. They'd agree: they are no smarter than me and likely less so.