2 years ago5,000+ Views
Is this it – definitive proof that I've been right all these years, and I really AM the smartest one in the family?
A new study highlighted by BBC News says that firstborns tend to be the smartest children in their family. This is what the article says:
In the Leipzig study a small difference in intelligence was found – firstborns tended to be slightly more intelligent than their younger siblings, who are in turn slightly more intelligent than their younger siblings. The researchers also discovered there were differences in how intelligent people thought they were, with first-born children being more likely to agree with statements such as "I am quick to understand things" than their younger siblings. These people were also more likely to say they found it easier to understand abstract ideas and that they had a richer vocabulary than younger siblings.
The researchers think that the small difference in social status within the family is what may be responsible for the difference in intelligence, as opposed to any biological difference.

What do you think?

I think I am kind of the smartest one in my family, and that older siblings do seem to be generally more motivated and achievement-oriented than little siblings. But if there's no biological factor, how can this hold true? I'd be interested to hear more about how social rank within the family can change the course of your development.
Interestingly, the article also talks about how being the oldest can affect your risk of diabetes, as well as your sexual orientation. You can click the link to read more if you're interested!
View more comments
why so angry, I never said I'd treat my siblings like crap
2 years ago·Reply
well ok then cuz ik some that do like mine
2 years ago·Reply
their full of crap then
2 years ago·Reply
umm thanks
2 years ago·Reply
well yeah they'd be smarter, they're older
2 years ago·Reply