Last week, the Internet was abuzz about new research which suggested that the oldest child in a family also had the highest IQ. (As an eldest child myself, I did get a certain degree of smug satisfaction out of it, although I did hold back from e-mailing my younger brothers with the "news".)
Today, CNN reports additional findings which conclude that it isn't a matter of being born first, but growing up the senior child, that seems to result in the higher IQ scores. They call it "social rank".
"Social rank" isn't just limited to intelligence however, so let's broaden what its impications might be. For instance, most people can readily state which child in their family was "the writer", the athlete", "the artist": usually the one with the strongest natural gift and/or interest in a particular area.
But what would happen if parents treated ***each*** of their children "as if" he or she had those aptitudes in abundance? (Just as in families where second-born men whose older sibling died were treated as if they were eldest children... and got the corresponding IQ jump.)
I'm guessing that it would be a world where creativity and excellence would flourish...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment