| User | Comment |
|---|
| Dino | | posted 20-Jan-2002 5:06pm |
I don't know but I would say that a middle child can be left feeling a little out or sorts. Anyway I do know of a phrase called 'second-child syndrome' They are often very much into sports or they become dropouts. Don't know if its true but my younger brother is a sports fanatic. Also first children tend to be well behaved and the second child is a nightmare. |
| darkshadowsseeker | | posted 20-Jan-2002 5:49pm |
Option 3 |
| confetti | | posted 20-Jan-2002 6:52pm |
I'm an only child and I have to say, we've got it best. More attention and more time around adults makes us more mature and less siblings makes us eager to make friends and have an easier time with social circles. I think birth order is a really good way to analyze things. For middle children, parents tend to be kind of bored with them to begin with because they've already had a kid and when they have another one, most of their attention is focused on littlest. So from an early start in life, middle kids have to fend for someone to pay attention to them. But most are really cool people. Some of my friends are middle children and from acting like a mediator from parents to older sibling to younger sibling they make good decisions and act as peace-makers. |
| Zang | | posted 20-Jan-2002 7:12pm |
Although I think that birth order/gender have a significant effect on personality development, and have noted similarities between people who share the same, I wouldn't agree with your description. It probably depends on the gender of the children... |
| Zang | | (reply to Dino) posted 20-Jan-2002 7:15pm |
I strongly disagree with your last statement. I've seen many cases where the contrary is the case. |
| lara | | posted 20-Jan-2002 9:36pm |
i think it depends on the child, on the parents, and on the circumstances surrounding the family. i'm the eldest of three. my sister, the middle child, had a difficult time during adolescence, but no more difficult than i did (i think - it's hard to quantify these things). |
| lara | | (reply to Dino) posted 20-Jan-2002 10:00pm |
my sister the middle child was well-behaved. i was the nightmare! |
| anoddoblivion | | posted 20-Jan-2002 10:57pm |
More ofetn than not, nothing happens different to the middle child. More often than not, nothing different happens to the older, younger, middle, any of them. When something does, it's not because of their order of birth.
Sometimes it does happen, but on extreme cases, like people only loving their first born and then disowning anymore born because they weren't first. People like that really need help. I've only heard of it in movies and soap operas, but I guess for it to happen on a TV show, there was some basis for it. |
| natsim | | posted 20-Jan-2002 11:58pm |
I think my middle sibling had the more difficult childhood and adolescence, but I'm not sure why. |
| skylark | | posted 21-Jan-2002 6:47am |
My big sister (I have two of them) always used to say she had hard time being a middle child, but I've never believed that.
I think being the eldest is often the toughest role, as the first children are expected to become perfect, bear responsibility, succeed in life, take care of the younger ones and all that. And they are usually disciplined more often than their siblings. I, of course, had the easiest childhood - at least on some aspect - since I was the youngest of my family. |
| msgman | | posted 21-Jan-2002 6:54am |
It depends on the family and the child. Birth order is certainly a significant factor, but the effect it has is qualified by other modifiers and can end up having opposite effects in different families. For example, the youngest child can sometimes mature more quickly as he/she always has older siblings to emulate and interact with. But sometimes the youngest matures later as he/she is always treated like the baby of the family, and so acts like it.
Middle children tend to get less attention than the youngest or oldest, but whether that helps or hinders them depends on the child. For some, it helps to develop their social and intellectual skills as they need to be more pro-active in leading their lives, but in others it holds them back if they lack the confidence to take control themselves.
Older children usually have the most pressure to succeed, and they suffer from the fact that their parents have to learn how to be parents with them - this is particularly the case when they are young (babies to toddler age) as first-time parents are usually over-protective. But having younger siblings to take responsibility for helps them to mature, and they usually benefit from being the first to achieve milestones in their lives.
Single children tend to get the advantages and disadvantages of both youngest and oldest children. They get a lot of adult attention - sometimes too much - and, like oldest children, suffer from the fact that their parents used them as a testing ground for their parental skills. Single children tend to be intellectually precocious but socially unskilled as far as peer group relationships are concerned. |
| Dino | | (reply to Zang) posted 21-Jan-2002 7:22am |
As a first child its important to my psychological delusion of grandeur that I reiterate my statement. Us first children are positively angelic. |
| grmbrand | | posted 21-Jan-2002 7:38am |
Dunno. Sounds like psychobabble to me. |
| Zang | | (reply to Dino) posted 21-Jan-2002 8:14am |
Of course! what was I thinking?  |
| ASexyBabe | | posted 21-Jan-2002 10:30am |
I personally think it is harder to be the oldest child. |
Maarten  | | posted 21-Jan-2002 10:54am |
Absolutely! Pffff.... |
| Enheduanna | | posted 21-Jan-2002 11:00am |
I am the child of two middle children, and my best friend growing up was a middle child. I have to say in general I think being a middle child is good for people--they don't have oldest-child syndrome or youngest-child syndrome. They can just be. Middle children usually turn out very cool. |
| autumnlight | | posted 21-Jan-2002 1:00pm |
There isn't a middle child in my family. |
| Biggles | | posted 21-Jan-2002 1:24pm |
I'm a middle-child and in my experience, no. We've all been given the attention, love, supprt etc that we need  |
| Jemmy | | posted 21-Jan-2002 3:45pm |
I sort of have experience, and no. For two and a half years and I had an older sister and a younger half brother, but my brother doesn't live with me, so I haven't got a lot of experience. But it really depends on the case. |
| Cleo | | posted 22-Jan-2002 12:06am |
No.Actually I think they have the advantage.The oldest has more to prove,cause they have to be an example to the rest of the up coming siblings. |
| Oscar | | posted 23-Jan-2002 11:49am |
no |
| cody | | posted 24-Jan-2002 4:33pm |
Ehhh... Simple answer- No.
Depends on the environment. Surprisingly enough the trend is that the middle children have it easy. They have a chance to make older, younger, same age friends through the siblings, they are largely left alone by the parents who are neither overbearing nor inexperienced... so, less stress, I'd say. |
| Wookiewoman |
Yes, birth order has A LOT to do with how the child is treated. I was a middle child and hated it. That's why I will only have an even number of kids, either 2 or 4. |
