Birth order means more than school or faith

Michael

"...after ten years of guitars and photoshoots and mugs of tea, we thought we wanted the more serious Mr Brown." People should be reminded that "we" did not think anything of the sort. Mr Brown was foisted upon us by behind-the-scenes manoeuvering and the Parliamentary Labour Party

gerry

Michael, I didn't want him either, but I guess Alice was thinking of the rise in his poll ratings in the early weeks after he foisted himself on us.

annabel

This article is so full of contradictions and weak so as to be embarassing applications of this theory that it leaves me frustrated, disappointed and shocked that the Spectator could publish something as flimsy and tenuous as this.

Ben

Mr Blair was able to send British soldiers to fight and die in a number of controversial wars, and sleep easy at night.

Herbert Thornton

I have no idea whether the article is flimsy and tenuous or profoundly true, but if birth order really is so important as an indicator of desirable qualities, does it not raise the question of whether it has been wise for the House of Commons ever to have forced on the House of Lords the series of reforms that have, step by step, taken away virtually all the powers of the traditional, hereditary Peerage?

Ray

So, in addition to a man being unsuitable for high office because he is bald or over sixty, he is now disqualified if he happens to be a middle sibling too.

Robert Diday

Is this any better than phrenology? Quick, someone buy GB a magnetic bracelet so he can send English sons to their deaths with insoucience, elan, and daring!

Adrian Tysoe

Having lived in the US for a few years now. I have to say that in many ways I wish we Brits could choose our leaders in a similar fashion with the public choosing which candidates should run for party leader and therefor naturaly become priminister should his party win the election. No one picked Gordon Brown to be Priminister. And for a democracy, the British public have very little say regarding how and how governs them. Both my wife and I are both first born, and I can definately see some truth in the article. Both of us had younger siblings who are more agreeable, charming and capable in social matters. Whilst we tend to be more inward looking,bookish, putting more emphasis on getting the job done properly than getting out and about and having fun.

Peter T

I think there's alot of sense in the article - so much so that I've forwarded to my three daughters! And I can well remember when the astronauts were first selected and the discovery that the vast majority of those who were chosen for training were first borns.

Jonathan Paget

Alice Thomson quotes that 76% of chief executives are first- or second-borns as though this is a surprising figure. That's about what I would have guessed for a group drawn from a population whose parents enjoyed an average of 2.4 children. The rest of the article contain several other examples of inferences about distinctions as a result of birth order made on a rather shaky statistical basis. Of course it may all be true, but she has not demonstrated it.

Angela

At least, I hope the research being true. If so I remain astonished and I hope this is the sense of the publication of the article: to catch the readers'attention.And you've got it!

schopenhauer

Why do people suspend their intelligence when astrology-esque psychobabble is proposed?

Think about it chaps: "76 per cent of chief executives are first- or second-borns." Is that interesting? No more than the uninteresting (arti-) fact that >95% of executives are first second, third, or fourth born.

i.e., All executives in 1, and 2 child families are necessarily first born, and 2/3 of children in 3 cild families are first or second born. As most families have 1-3 children, then nearly all execs should be first or second born.

non-cogito ergo non-sequitur!

John Ionides

Glad to see that others are skeptical of that 76% figure. Would anyone find it amazing that in China, ~100% CEOs are first or second (surviving) cildren? In fact, at a fist glance, it would appear that younger children are OVER represented, not under represented (depending a bit on the definitions, if the second child in a two-child family counts as second born, which I imagine would be the case). But maybe Ms Thomson can tell us what proportion of the total US population are first or second children. Lies, damn lies, and back to Maths GCSE.

Morgie

"It sounds ridiculous, but in America birth order is taken very seriously indeed." That is because it is ridiculous. We take birth order about as seriously as we take the latest diet plan.

Alidë

As with all theories, there are exceptions. That's what makes them theories. In my family, I am the youngest of four. I am the shortest in a very tall family, which supports one of the findings. My eldest brother most likely had the highest IQ, but his tendency to look inward has derailed him, and made him th eleast succesful of the four, which supports another part of the theory. The two middle siblings are fraternal twins. Both have only midling IQs, have done midling well, but their social skills are also only midling. That leaves me. My IQ, when tested in school, was above average. I am the intuitive one, the artistic one, the one who has taken the most chances and the one who has reached the highest and achieved the most. So, in many ways I am the perfect example that supports the theory. But, as I stated before, it is just a theory, and I am not yet fully convinced that it stands. More testing has to be done, and more room has to be made for the exceptions to the rule.

Simon Peters

Is it now a conditioned reflex for every journalist to have "son of the manse" in any article about Gordon Brown?

Daniel

Having just read Alide's comment I feel compelled to observe that (s)he is probably not the most modest and charming of her siblings!

Jane Trueman

please can you let me have the details of the Norwegian research study mentioned in the article. thank you