The star is reporting that first born kids are brighter than second or third born kids, and that kids get dumber the more you pump out.
hmm.
so what does brighter mean?
If it means that they are more willing to try to do well on tests that adults give them, tests and tricks that have no value for anything except being rated, then I suppose you could call them bright. I, on the other hand, have found the following adjectives more appropriate:
obedient
subservient
manipulatable
dim
annoying
boring
and so on.
I mean, maybe the only real reason they are achievers is because they are so incensed that their parents didnt think they were perfect and so decided to try to have a better kid, begetting the whole overachiever complex in the first place.
If, on the other hand, the younger kid is all yo so if this doesnt mean anything then im not going to try much my older sibling is always the try-er and the moment i start there's no going back, i dont have anything to prove and im not about to set up expectations just to break them and disappoint. yep, ill take the lower IQ score and that way when i choose to do something really awesome everyone is amazed how much i have grown and become so wise while my try-hard older sibling idles on saving orphans and the parents just shrug that off saying DUH you better you have the higher IQ.
hah.
So really the brighter kids might just end up being the youngest kids who have been watching and got to play stupid when their parents were playing the measuring game on their older siblings.
yup. eat it, IQ tests.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
You want one of my shirts already dont you
Seaflow
- Elizabeth Chelsea
- im coming out of hiding since he got a peace bond and cant associate with me for a year.
2 comments:
IQ tests aren't exactly a good indicator of relative 'brightness' if you ask me... I mean, people are always saying how IQ tests measure certain types of intelligence... these tests virtually ignore other important forms of intelligence such as emotional intelligence, musical intelligence, creativity, etc. Just 'cause the youngest have lower IQ scores doesn't mean they're less bright. Maybe the birth order emphasizes the development of certain functions over others -- for example, firstborns might be adept in problem solving and abstraction while second borns are particularly skilled in creative self-expression and conflict resolution. IQ tests are stupid.
I thought the article was supposed to be a reflection on parents' slackery when it came to raising a second kid, rather than a criticism of the younger child trying less hard because they had some inferiority complex... hung?
Being an only child only makes more sense now, since I get to be the brightest and dumbest at the same time.
Post a Comment