In today's NY Times, Dr. Perri Klass tells the story of a family she treated. The oldest of the three children was very high-achieving. Klass writes,

She is the oldest, her mother would say, so she gets lots of attention, and she works very hard. When her younger sister turned out to be an equally good student, the proud mother explained that naturally she wanted to be just like her older sister.

Then a long-looked-for baby boy was born. When he was a toddler, I began to worry that his speech seemed a little slow in coming. His mother was perfectly calm about it. He is the only boy, she said, so he gets lots of attention, and he doesn't have to work very hard.

Klass uses this example to illustrate that "birth order can be used to explain every trait and its precise opposite." But that doesn't keep parents from making assumptions about their kids based on which one popped out of the womb first. Klass talked to Dr. Peter A. Gorski, who says, "Too many parents are haunted by experiences both good and bad that they identify with their birth order." They may then "classify their own children according to birth order [...] which in turn can lead to a sense of identification or even rejection and to 'self-fulfilling prophecies.'"

Last week we learned that parental perceptions may amplify gender differences — now it seems they may exaggerate, or even create, the influence of birth order as well. Of course, it's no surprise that how parents see their kids changes how those kids grow up, or that parents draw on their own good and bad memories. But what's the solution here? Should parents refrain from drawing on their own experiences at all, to avoid unduly influencing their kids?

Making the issue a lot more complicated is that kids, even babies, aren't just passive bags of influence. They're human beings, and they influence their parents right back. Not only that, but what they take from their upbringing may be totally different from what their parents think they are giving. My mom, for instance, is always shocked by the things I remember her saying (whether or not she really told me that "when you die, everything just goes black forever" is a big bone of contention). Klass quotes an old saying that "no two children grow up in the same family, because each sibling's experience is so different" — by that standard, parents don't really live in the same family as their children either.

So how can parents avoid making their assumptions about their kids into "self-fulfilling prophecies?" Obviously, it's a good idea not to underestimate children, or to treat them according to gender or birth-order stereotypes. But anyone who believes that parents' "prophecies" wholly dictate how kids turn out is giving parents a lot of credit. If that were true, the world would have a lot more Einsteins and a lot fewer assholes.

Birth Order: Fun To Debate, But How Important? [NYT]
Does Birth Order Matter? [NYT]

Earlier: Do Parents Create Gender Differences?

We've discussed sisterhood before; but mostly childhood hijinks and run-of-the-mill adolescent torture. Cyndi Hoffman is 47 years old; Peggy is 33. Are they proof that you're never too old for sibling conflict? What made Cyndi turn in her flesh and blood? Is it because, as author Vikki Stark (My Sister, My Self) said on the Today show this morning (see above clip), older sisters are the "caretakers"? Was Cyndi envious of Peggy? (It was a glowing profile in the Times that prompted Cyndi to phone Peggy's publisher and call bullshit on Peggy's claim that she was a half-white, half-Native American girl who grew up in South-Central Los Angeles as a foster child among gang-bangers and ran drugs for the Bloods.)

Times columnist Tara Parker-Pope points out: "While we choose our friends and rely on our parents, siblings remain in our lives by neither choice nor necessity." As both Parker-Pope and Stark say: The relationship between sisters can powerfully influence the outcome of the womens' lives as adults. If your sister was on her way to becoming a best-selling author in a career built on a lie, would you turn her in? Or is it important to be loyal to your family, no matter what? What do you do when being a good person means being a bad sister?

In Sisters, Love and an Urge to Wring Her Neck, Siblings Behaving Badly, Sibling Battles [New York Times]
In Sisters, Love And An Urge To Wring Her Neck [NBC News]

Earlier: Are First-Borns More Successful Than Younger Siblings?
Older Sisters Are All A Bunch Of Hilarious Sadists
An Open Apology To Our Younger Sisters
Did Faux Memoirist Peggy Seltzer Reveal A Culture Of Narcissism Or Racism?
Female Gang-Banging Memoirist Is More Fiction Than Fact

Families bestow greater resources and attention on the first-born, and eldest children often adopt the role of caretaker toward younger siblings. A Philippine study found that later-born siblings weigh less than earlier-borns. According to a Norwegian study, the eldest child enjoys on average a three-point IQ advantage over the next eldest sibling, a gap attributed to the older kids' roles as mentors to the younger children. These advantages might explain why eldest children are overrepresented among board directors, M.B.A.s and surgeons.

The WSJ article by Robin Moroney also states that within families, the youngest children tend to have to struggle for attention — and in doing so resort to subversive behavior. Moroney notes that this isn't always to their disadvantage: "Some of the most famous satirists have been later-borns — Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain and Stephen Colbert." Later-borns are also more willing to take on risk, says Frank Sulloway, a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. But when you throw fame into the mix, it creates a situation in which we do not know who is better off: Jessica or Ashlee Simpson? Kim Kardashian or her 9-year-old pole dancing sister? Paris or Nicky Hilton? Ben or Casey Affleck? Luke or Owen Wilson? Nick or Aaron Carter?

How Being an Older (or Younger) Sibling Affects Personality [WSJ]
Earlier: Older Sisters Are All A Bunch Of Hilarious Sadists