I started by writing about the basic demographics and politics of my readers. Then we talked about your likes and dislikes, and the things you’re wrong about. To wrap up the Richard Hanania newsletter series, I’m going to talk about birth order effects. I didn’t think this was something that actually existed. Many years ago I read Judith Rich Harris’
I would be the youngest of 5 in my *birth family*, but the only one of the 5 to read Hanania, or read at all. There is a substantial IQ / temperament gap between me and those siblings.
In my adopted family - adopted at a coupla months, I am the oldest of two, where again I'd be the only reader and beneficiary of a sizeable IQ advantage.
If there is a reason (I'm an only child and have no dog in the fight) it might be that older siblings grow up more accustomed to (and liking) having their opinions listened to. Even if the site itself does not provide a way of voicing opinions, the person might still be attracted a "preparation" for opining in other fora.
I thought the book was pseudo-science. No studies, just the author's personal observations. (Cards on the table: In a different book Lehman attacks the Behavior Genetics of Judith Harris, and I probably hate him for being closer to the "Blank Slate" side of the spectrum.)
While Lehman nailed my personality in his Birth Order book, I assumed this was just the Barnum effect; similar to the "5 Love Languages"--a book that's not unreasonable, but filled with zero studies, controlled experiments or factor analysis--but that probably does improve people's lives.
That said, I find it interesting that I'm such an outlier! I'm the youngest of two, but I'm definitely the smartest member of my family (in terms of education, income and job placement). I would be fascinated to see what the Big Five traits of your readership are! (That would be hard to gather data on, though.)
Finally, I hate to rain on the parade in the last paragraph, but--when I read it the first thing I thought was, "Wow. Maybe some people are much more likely to change than others," rather than assuming that you were the catalyst. I--of course!--deeply admire you, your accomplishments and your substack. While your work has certainly changed my way of thinking, I'm not sure if your views on Civil Rights or Women's tears would cause me to parent differently.
P.S. I was excited to hear your interview on the Tom Woods show! (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R58TI1CanI) Tom didn't mention me, (see the 1:22--1:38 mark in the video) but I was the one who handed him your name at a live event in Florida about two weeks before you were on the show. Really hope you sync up with him again. Going to promote your work in our Private chat!
The key book on birth order was written 25 years ago. It's "Born to Rebel," by Frank Sulloway. He's one of those odd ducks you'd occasionally see in the bowels of your college library, mid-30's, working on a magnum opus, but not teaching many classes (if any). His t-shirt was stained with sweat and he surrounded himself with 150 biographies of scientists through the ages, carefully taking notes, neglecting to eat more than one meal a day. He figured it out down there.
“His methodology was straightforward. If there were no birth order effects, then whenever there is a reader who grew up in a two-child family, there should be a 50% chance that they were a firstborn.”
Wait, hang on — this seems wrong.
Imagine a town where every family has two children. This is a funny town, and in this town the families all decided to have the second child last year.
In this town, the chance that a reader of Scott Alexander is the elder child of two is close to 100%.
That’s an artificial example to show that the argument — at least as presented — can’t work. It depends on the age distribution but generally you expect bias.
More realistically, you expect bias toward being the eldest child since the probability of encountering/reading Scott generally goes up in the age range zero to, say, 20. If you asked, instead “what are birth order effects for wearing diapers”, using this method, you’d find the opposite—why are all these second-borns so immature?
Birth order effect for intelligence just seems to be real.
I haven't checked if this is true, but interestingly Arthur Jensen wrote that "The disadvantage of being later-born, however, is very slight and shows up conspicuously only in the extreme upper tail of the distribution of achievements."
It should also be noted that a birth order effect could be (in part) a biological phenomenon i.e. the accumulation of harmful mutations in the gametes as parents age.
With a large enough sample size, even an effect on a small portion can be statistically significant.
You don't just have to rely on Judith Harris' empirical work. There's also a theoretical basis in Trivers' theory of genetic conflict: it is not to the advantage of a child to be so moldable by their parents because the child doesn't have identical Darwinian interests with said parents.
Just because you can influence adults doesn't mean you will be good at influencing children(yours or anybody else's). If you send kids to public school, it's almost a guarantee that their peers and teachers will have more influence than you do. It doesn't mean your influence in none, but the probable reason studies don't find much parental influence is because just about everyone has the same upbringing: public school(and most private schools aren't much different).
There's also the well-documented fraternal birth order effect (the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be homosexual). So in addition to a slightly higher IQ or curiosity, firstborns are slightly less gay, which would certainly make them more likely to be Hanania appreciators.
Well done - many thanks. Thoughtless acceptance and application of statistical indicators has become my pet peeve. Whatever happened to relying on one’s own experiences? It’s as if ‘average’ = universal. Ugh.
As I recall, there is an advantage of 1-2 IQ points for firstborns in the intelligence literature (I say this as a second child). I believe it's attributed to greater parental time investment in the first child - they get 100% of the parenting attention until their sibling(s) is/are born and often an equal or greater share after that.
Really interested whether this is true for women as well. Is there a way to get some sophisticated feminist website to do a survey of their readers and include this question?
Also, are there hobbies or interests that show the opposite effect with first-borns significantly less likely than expected? Or do you just find either no/tiny differences or significant ones in favor of first-borns?
I'd be a major outlier in your study.
I would be the youngest of 5 in my *birth family*, but the only one of the 5 to read Hanania, or read at all. There is a substantial IQ / temperament gap between me and those siblings.
In my adopted family - adopted at a coupla months, I am the oldest of two, where again I'd be the only reader and beneficiary of a sizeable IQ advantage.
If there is a reason (I'm an only child and have no dog in the fight) it might be that older siblings grow up more accustomed to (and liking) having their opinions listened to. Even if the site itself does not provide a way of voicing opinions, the person might still be attracted a "preparation" for opining in other fora.
I bet this is older brothers hitting the younger ones in the head.
This is interesting. I read a book called "The Birth Order Book: Why you are the way you are" by psychologist Kevin Lehman. (See here: https://www.amazon.com/Birth-Order-Book-Why-You/dp/0800723848/ref=sr_1_2?crid=FGGVMQUA1H1G&keywords=kevin+lehman&qid=1660913736&s=books&sprefix=kevin+lehman%2Cstripbooks%2C65&sr=1-2)
I thought the book was pseudo-science. No studies, just the author's personal observations. (Cards on the table: In a different book Lehman attacks the Behavior Genetics of Judith Harris, and I probably hate him for being closer to the "Blank Slate" side of the spectrum.)
While Lehman nailed my personality in his Birth Order book, I assumed this was just the Barnum effect; similar to the "5 Love Languages"--a book that's not unreasonable, but filled with zero studies, controlled experiments or factor analysis--but that probably does improve people's lives.
That said, I find it interesting that I'm such an outlier! I'm the youngest of two, but I'm definitely the smartest member of my family (in terms of education, income and job placement). I would be fascinated to see what the Big Five traits of your readership are! (That would be hard to gather data on, though.)
Finally, I hate to rain on the parade in the last paragraph, but--when I read it the first thing I thought was, "Wow. Maybe some people are much more likely to change than others," rather than assuming that you were the catalyst. I--of course!--deeply admire you, your accomplishments and your substack. While your work has certainly changed my way of thinking, I'm not sure if your views on Civil Rights or Women's tears would cause me to parent differently.
P.S. I was excited to hear your interview on the Tom Woods show! (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R58TI1CanI) Tom didn't mention me, (see the 1:22--1:38 mark in the video) but I was the one who handed him your name at a live event in Florida about two weeks before you were on the show. Really hope you sync up with him again. Going to promote your work in our Private chat!
The key book on birth order was written 25 years ago. It's "Born to Rebel," by Frank Sulloway. He's one of those odd ducks you'd occasionally see in the bowels of your college library, mid-30's, working on a magnum opus, but not teaching many classes (if any). His t-shirt was stained with sweat and he surrounded himself with 150 biographies of scientists through the ages, carefully taking notes, neglecting to eat more than one meal a day. He figured it out down there.
https://www.amazon.com/Born-Rebel-Family-Dynamics-Creative/dp/0679758763/ref=asc_df_0679758763?tag=bngsmtphsnus-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80333185696759&hvnetw=s&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4583932713615842&psc=1
“His methodology was straightforward. If there were no birth order effects, then whenever there is a reader who grew up in a two-child family, there should be a 50% chance that they were a firstborn.”
Wait, hang on — this seems wrong.
Imagine a town where every family has two children. This is a funny town, and in this town the families all decided to have the second child last year.
In this town, the chance that a reader of Scott Alexander is the elder child of two is close to 100%.
That’s an artificial example to show that the argument — at least as presented — can’t work. It depends on the age distribution but generally you expect bias.
More realistically, you expect bias toward being the eldest child since the probability of encountering/reading Scott generally goes up in the age range zero to, say, 20. If you asked, instead “what are birth order effects for wearing diapers”, using this method, you’d find the opposite—why are all these second-borns so immature?
Am I missing something?
Wouldn't this study by relevant? https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1506451112
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1506451112
Birth order effect for intelligence just seems to be real.
I haven't checked if this is true, but interestingly Arthur Jensen wrote that "The disadvantage of being later-born, however, is very slight and shows up conspicuously only in the extreme upper tail of the distribution of achievements."
It should also be noted that a birth order effect could be (in part) a biological phenomenon i.e. the accumulation of harmful mutations in the gametes as parents age.
With a large enough sample size, even an effect on a small portion can be statistically significant.
You don't just have to rely on Judith Harris' empirical work. There's also a theoretical basis in Trivers' theory of genetic conflict: it is not to the advantage of a child to be so moldable by their parents because the child doesn't have identical Darwinian interests with said parents.
Just because you can influence adults doesn't mean you will be good at influencing children(yours or anybody else's). If you send kids to public school, it's almost a guarantee that their peers and teachers will have more influence than you do. It doesn't mean your influence in none, but the probable reason studies don't find much parental influence is because just about everyone has the same upbringing: public school(and most private schools aren't much different).
This might have little to do with nurture.
Wasn't there a study showing firstborns getting more Testo in the womb?
There's also the well-documented fraternal birth order effect (the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be homosexual). So in addition to a slightly higher IQ or curiosity, firstborns are slightly less gay, which would certainly make them more likely to be Hanania appreciators.
Well done - many thanks. Thoughtless acceptance and application of statistical indicators has become my pet peeve. Whatever happened to relying on one’s own experiences? It’s as if ‘average’ = universal. Ugh.
Do you have any ideas about what might explain the birth order effect?
As I recall, there is an advantage of 1-2 IQ points for firstborns in the intelligence literature (I say this as a second child). I believe it's attributed to greater parental time investment in the first child - they get 100% of the parenting attention until their sibling(s) is/are born and often an equal or greater share after that.
Really interested whether this is true for women as well. Is there a way to get some sophisticated feminist website to do a survey of their readers and include this question?
Also, are there hobbies or interests that show the opposite effect with first-borns significantly less likely than expected? Or do you just find either no/tiny differences or significant ones in favor of first-borns?