4 ms·
>If birth order effects were so very visible and so very strong, why haven't we noticed them before? I'm not sure where you're from but everyone I know (includ
by alien_at_work 9y ago
>If birth order effects were so very visible and so very strong, why haven't we noticed them before?
I'm not sure where you're from but everyone I know (including a psychologist) sees birth order effects as very real with noticable effect. Have you never seen the stats of first borns being overrepresented in management, for example? Am I misunderstanding what you mean by "haven't noticed them before"?
- graphitezepp 9y agoAnother example, having older brothers is one of the most consistent correlations with homosexuality for males. Birth order effects are absolutely visible.
- aetherson 9y agoAs the article mentions in like the first couple of paragraphs, those results haven't generally withstood replication. But more so, the effects in the Slate Star Codex survey are extremely strong. You'd expect that an effect that strong would be part of the common wisdom, not something that has to be teased out in a psychological study.
- dclowd9901 9y agoWell, to what you just mentioned, it -seems- to be a "common wisdom" that is disregarded by scientific study. So, maybe this is a case where the study was ill-designed, but everyone took it for granted?
- aetherson 9y agoI don't think it is common wisdom. Like, look: which of your coworkers are first-born? How many of them did you intuit that without explicitly asking?
- AstralStorm 9y agoThat depends on the field. The guesses can be very accurate based on ancillary data like profession.