5 ms·
It seems tough to me to suggest that people are putting a default 0 in for older siblings but a default non-zero in for younger siblings. Why wouldn't they be
by aetherson 9y ago
It seems tough to me to suggest that people are putting a default 0 in for older siblings but a default non-zero in for younger siblings. Why wouldn't they be consistent?
That said, I still don't believe these data. I don't know where the flaw is, but I none the less think there's a flaw. If it were a much smaller effect, it would be much more believable.
- cabalamat 9y ago> If it were a much smaller effect, it would be much more believable. Why do you think that? We know that the SSC readership is in many ways quite distinct from the general population, so why do you find it surprising that it has correlations with birth order? Is it because you find it surprising that anything has correlations with birth order?
- bildung 9y agoThe effect would have to be smaller because most effects in psychology and sociology are pretty small. Else they would be obvious (common sense) even without field experiments.
- carlmr 9y agoI agree with the other comments here that it is a rather common sense effect, but it has eluded psychological research until now (which is what makes me question it). I know plenty of people who have a common sense view that birth order is important. So that part isn't missing. I can't even grasp how many times I've heard about the middle child being so different. Or being a typical little brother, etc. For me the question is, if it is so obvious and measurable, why is this the first study that finds this obvious effect.
- xyzzyz 9y agoMost effects are small if you sample general population randomly. However, if you make a survey among basketball players, asking them for their height, you're going to find an extremely large effect. And in fact, birth order effect seem to be common wisdom too.