4 ms·

What's weird about that? On average men outrank woman in professional tennis, that doesn't make it weird that Serena Williams would utterly destroy me and most

by jVinc 9y ago

What's weird about that? On average men outrank woman in professional tennis, that doesn't make it weird that Serena Williams would utterly destroy me and most men on the courts 10 out 10 times. Single points aren't anti-points to statistical effects. Now if you happened to have a thousand friends that where also the youngest of 6 and happened to test higher on IQ scores, that would be weird. For more than one reason.

buserror 9y ago
Well it IS wierd, because you would assume than that 'eldest child' principle would get at least linearly worse the more kids there are in a family... So I must be particularly lucky, OR perhaps we don't really have good numbers for the other end of the spectrum, regarding 'youngest child' general performances? Or, again, perhaps there is a large part of cultural bias ("eldest/heir" of the family being assumed as better) so given more attention/resources... And that since I'm from a family with a single mother (who didn't have time/inclination for that) I was spared that? In any case, I think making up "exists and are strong" conclusions without taking into account more parameters is simplistic at best...
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  It is possible that like many other effects, firstborn effects are subject to law of big numbers. (Or some statistical distribution other than Gaussian.) Alternatively birth distance (time between births) or age of mother are the actual correlate. We do not know.
- ema 9y ago
  Looking at the graphs in the article the difference between oldest and second oldest is much bigger than between subsequent ones.
- igravious 9y ago
  > Well it IS wierd, because you would assume than that 'eldest child' principle would get at least linearly worse the more kids there are in a family First. The word is weird. Second. No, you would not assume that. Why would you assume that? You could also with equal validity assume that something is present in the mother with the first-born that is absent in all the rest. You could also assume the study is hokum and missed something obvious. Third. This “Single points aren't anti-points to statistical effects.” is _exactly_ why it isn't weird. Even supposing there is some statistically distributed effect you as a single point is a total non-issue. You are not special. Do get back to me if you've three heads or something. Fourth. To think it is weird suggests you are in fact not as smart as you think you are. :) Fifth. To continue arguing the point when it has been explained to you why you are wrong is again indicative of not being as smart as you think you are. :) :)
  - buserror 9y ago
    First. I love people who seems to associate spelling with intelligence and take high pride it pointing out other people mistakes, without any knowledge of how many languages they might be fluent in. Second. Oops, no seconds here, First is usually enough for me to lose interest in said people.
    - tortasaur 9y ago
      I think they pointed out the spelling error because it was made twice. I don't see anywhere in their comment where they tied it to your intelligence.
      - igravious 9y ago
        Thank you. It was because it was made twice, not a slur on their intelligence, I wouldn't do that.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Previously I'd been lead to believe that IQ score increases by a couple of points for each child? Not sure exactly where that result was from however.

by jVinc 9y ago

buserror 9y ago

Well it IS wierd, because you would assume than that 'eldest child' principle would get at least linearly worse the more kids there are in a family... So I must be particularly lucky, OR perhaps we don't really have good numbers for the other end of the spectrum, regarding 'youngest child' general performances? Or, again, perhaps there is a large part of cultural bias ("eldest/heir" of the family being assumed as better) so given more attention/resources... And that since I'm from a family with a single mother (who didn't have time/inclination for that) I was spared that? In any case, I think making up "exists and are strong" conclusions without taking into account more parameters is simplistic at best...

AstralStorm 9y ago
It is possible that like many other effects, firstborn effects are subject to law of big numbers. (Or some statistical distribution other than Gaussian.) Alternatively birth distance (time between births) or age of mother are the actual correlate. We do not know.
ema 9y ago
Looking at the graphs in the article the difference between oldest and second oldest is much bigger than between subsequent ones.
igravious 9y ago
> Well it IS wierd, because you would assume than that 'eldest child' principle would get at least linearly worse the more kids there are in a family First. The word is weird. Second. No, you would not assume that. Why would you assume that? You could also with equal validity assume that something is present in the mother with the first-born that is absent in all the rest. You could also assume the study is hokum and missed something obvious. Third. This “Single points aren't anti-points to statistical effects.” is _exactly_ why it isn't weird. Even supposing there is some statistically distributed effect you as a single point is a total non-issue. You are not special. Do get back to me if you've three heads or something. Fourth. To think it is weird suggests you are in fact not as smart as you think you are. :) Fifth. To continue arguing the point when it has been explained to you why you are wrong is again indicative of not being as smart as you think you are. :) :)
- buserror 9y ago
  First. I love people who seems to associate spelling with intelligence and take high pride it pointing out other people mistakes, without any knowledge of how many languages they might be fluent in. Second. Oops, no seconds here, First is usually enough for me to lose interest in said people.
  - tortasaur 9y ago
    I think they pointed out the spelling error because it was made twice. I don't see anywhere in their comment where they tied it to your intelligence.
    - igravious 9y ago
      Thank you. It was because it was made twice, not a slur on their intelligence, I wouldn't do that.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

Previously I'd been lead to believe that IQ score increases by a couple of points for each child? Not sure exactly where that result was from however.