u235

Logically speaking the first child is the eldest child. There's lots of things special about being first in any venue, but recently, it's been diagnosed that eldest kids are often the smarter kids. Ok, well, that comes as no big surprise to many of us. But if our overly-sensitive society that's now a problem rather than a simple statement of collected data.

The knee jerk reaction being published is "Oh that's so unfair to the rest of the kids."

Come the fuck on.

Unfair? How? You can't blame the parents or the child for the birth order of the kids, nor can you switch them around after their born. People can't "take turns" at being the eldest, I'm sorry. Instead of just acknowledging that someone conducted an effective study to uncover supporting data for something most people took for granted, people are how howling about the inherent inequality for subsequent children. There will be a drive to "equalize" family dynamics to make things more "fair".

As far as I'm concerned this is so unspeakably stupid it's almost hard to express. Why this should be a problem for anyone at all is beyond reason. Life does not require justification. Eldest kids are test-subjects for their parents. Eldest kids are stuck with additional responsibilities. Eldest kids face more scrutiny. The list goes on and on. If you want to talk "fair" how does all that weigh into the balance?

Finally, these meddling morons who want to make certain all kids have an even slice of the intelligence pie - is that really what you want? You want the oldest child to be stupider when he's the one in charge of his siblings? Or is it that you want the younger kids smarter so they can better circumvent any authority?

Be careful what you ask for. The current situation works, instead of trying to destroy that balance maybe some analysis needs to be done regarding the public consumption of scientific studies first.

The data? You can't handle the data...