> 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. Th

> 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. :) :)