Why Kids Believe Weird Things
Near the end of Michael Shermer’s “Why People Believe Weird Things,” a book well worth reading as we confront the issue of critical thinking skills and how they affect science education, I ran into one of the weirdest things of them all. If it weren’t backed up by tons of evidence, I might think Shermer was falling into his own long list of fallacies.
Firstborns are far more likely to be conservative and influenced by authority than laterborns.
How much more likely? 3 to 4 TIMES more likely.
Frank Sulloway, a psychologist, studied the stances taken by nearly 4000 people in 28 separate scientific controversies for over four hundred years. He evaluated birth order v. acceptance of new, revolutionary scientific ideas. Laterborns were massively more likely to accept the new, different approach. Only children fell somewhere in the middle.
Wow. Way over chance.
His theory is that firstborns receive much more parental attention, and often have greater responsibility. They develop close ties to the parental authority, reinforcing that authority as the “right” way to think. Applying evolutionary psychology, Sulloway reasons that, as second and later-borns compete for limited parental attention and resources, they are forced to move into new, less traditional areas to find it. They exhibit more risk taking behavior, and more “heretical” thinking.
This is a massive simplification of the theory, but the point remains–conservatism follows first borns for life; later borns are more accepting of radical new ideas. When firstborns do accept some new, radical idea, it’s generally one that reaffirms “the social, religious, and political status quo and that emphasize hierarchy, order, and the possibility of complete scientific certainty.”
Wow!
To me, the most compelling piece of data Shermer sites is the most damning–mothers are far more likely to step in and “help” a first-born solve a puzzle. The later-borns get to figure them out on their own.
We do it to them. We, the parents. Us.
So which do we prefer? Do we want to create cookie-cutter children who think like we do? Then we should treat all the children as firstborns. Go ahead. Try it. I dare you.
Do we want kids who can change the world? Maybe a healthy dose of “back off and let them do it themselves” is in order.
Sulloway takes his thought process a step further in his book, “Born to Rebel.” [Disclaimer--I haven't read it, yet. The book's been out since 1996, but I hadn't run into it until I read Shermer's book. This info is from his website.]
“Most persuasively, Sulloway’s findings offer conclusive evidence that the family, with its powerful interpersonal dynamics, is a cauldron for the great revolutionary advances that drive historical change. Through his analysis of revolutions in science and social thought, from the Reformation to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, Sulloway demonstrates that the primary engine of history is located within families, not between them, as Marx believed.”
Fascinating.
Critical thinking begins at home. Stop doing the kids’ puzzles. Get your own.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!Related posts:
- Kids and Phone Etiquette
- Kids are Supposed to Fight
- I Bet Will Shortz Never Loses His Cool With His Kids
- There are Some Things Kids Should Just Know
- Boys and Girls ARE Different. TRUST Me.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

![[del.icio.us]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[kirtsy]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/kirtsy.png)
![[MySpace]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)




17 Comments
Stephanie Barr
Monday, 1st March 2010 at 4:01 pm
I find this fascinating. I'm a first born and I never would have grouped myself in the conservative, follow-the-established-path group. Ever. Nor was I desperately close to my parents. Nor did they EVER solve any problems for me that I can recall. Certainly not any puzzles or challenges.
I don't do it for my (eldest) daughter either. I like self-sufficient children.
[Reply]
TheMother Replies:
March 1st, 2010 at 9:12 pm
I would argue that it's difficult to learn to be a conservative thinker from your parents if your parents aren't conservative thinkers. My oldest is a devotee of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And I never finished his puzzles, either. Could not bring myself to do those inane things. Now, when they grew up enough to help with crosswords…
[Reply]
becca
Monday, 1st March 2010 at 6:03 pm
Wait, my kid isn't supposed to be my puzzle?
[Reply]
MichelePFM
Monday, 1st March 2010 at 6:15 pm
Okay, so when you start your post with "Near the end of Michael Shermer’s “Why People Believe Weird Things,” a book well worth reading as we confront the issue of critical thinking skills and how they affect science education," I'm thinking that I wish you were my next-door neighbor, or at least in my neighborhood, because few around me would understand (and agree) why this would be a book worth reading. Me, I get it.
Looking at my own children, I'd have to agree with his premise.
My oldest is a people-pleaser, and I've thought for years that this is all my fault.
I want self-sufficient kids. I ride my kids pretty hard about doing things for themselves, whether it's cleaning up their own messes to getting their own lunches to getting their own things ready for school or making their own arrangements to meet other people/enroll in classes/schedule their own events/etc.
And, yet, even though I do this with my oldest, I am much more likely to step in and help her…even though I know better. Perhaps it has to do more with her personality than birth order–she's a bright, hard-working, happy-go-lucky but clueless kid, very much like her own golden retriever puppy. However, she is first-born.
I also wonder if these findings have anything to do with how the parents themselves were raised. I was raised–if you could call it that–by a couple of abusive nutcases. I never had good examples of what good parenting was…I've had to wing it all the way. I also have a paranoia–as much as I hate to admit it–of turning out like my own parents, so I think I overcompensate sometimes. Do parents who had controlling parents more likely to be more authoritative with the firstborn, or did they come from parents who neglected them? Or is it across the board?
See, now I have to go read this book.
[Reply]
TheMother Replies:
March 1st, 2010 at 9:13 pm
As I mentioned, I have yet to read Sulloway's book, from which this data comes. It's on my list. I'll keep you posted.
[Reply]
badmommymoments
Monday, 1st March 2010 at 6:23 pm
YES! You're always several steps ahead of me. I didn't realize how much I "did" for my firstborn until I caught her "doing things" for her little sister. When I stopped her I realized that she was just imitating me.
Talk about in my face.
I've backed down tremendously, hopefully it's not too late!
[Reply]
sara
Monday, 1st March 2010 at 8:32 pm
Amazing. Did Sulloway have (i imagine he did, but checking) children who were born close together- such as Irish Twins/ect? I wonder if amount of time between children changed any findings. Wait- now that i think about it, it must go either way, because around 400 years ago, I don't imagine we had the length we often do today between births. I was just curious the effects of the study if the children were born, say 9-12 months apart vs. 3-4+ years apart. My boys are 3 years 9 months apart and I do clearly see this effect. I question whether what i see is deepened by the great difference in age. Elijah had almost 4 years of just our influence, which may have shaped him to a higher degree. I'll have to check the site out- thanks.
[Reply]
TheMother Replies:
March 1st, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Again, haven't read the book the data come from. Working on it. I'll try to answer these questions, if those answers are in the book.
The results were valid for all second and after births, though, so probably. I imagine it would have been more pronounced in the old days, since mom had so much more to do.
[Reply]
frogmama
Monday, 1st March 2010 at 8:53 pm
Wow, this was really interesting. I only have a first-born right now, but all of this applies to me and my brother. I've really tried to let my son do more on his own. Lately he's been saying he wants to do things all by himself–that's a great reminder for me.
[Reply]
Mrsbear
Tuesday, 2nd March 2010 at 4:35 am
Interesting theory. I'd like to think, as a first-born, I don't fit in to the mold suggested, but then again I suppose I can blame (or thank) my parents non-parenting styles for that too.
[Reply]
mira
Tuesday, 2nd March 2010 at 5:47 am
My children were born minutes apart and yet they follow a lot of the stereotypes of first, middle and baby despite it. The 'eldest' by minutes is the most responsible and obedient. The youngest is the 'baby' and spends more time in my lap and clinging to me. I just can't imagine it is all my doing as why would I treat them differently when they are all the same age at the same time? I didn't get the benefit of showering one eldest with singular attention for any amount of time. So how the heck does it still happen that they follow the roles?
Parenting is weird.
[Reply]
Jen
Tuesday, 2nd March 2010 at 7:50 pm
I find this very interesting. My brother, the oldest is very conservative. I tend to have a mis mash of ideas and beliefs though I still consider myself conservative. We were raised by conservative parents until my father came out of the closet and all bets were off. My brother became more conservative and I became more liberal on a lot of things. My brother's 1st born child is very liberal, heretic, bangs her own drum etc, the second daughter is much more conservative. My son on the other hand is conservative though he looks nothing like one. I don't know where my daughter falls yet. She is clueless as well so gets more assistance than her brother did, she is also the squeaky wheel in the family and after the ten year spread I don't have as much patience to put up with it. Her brother will force her to figure out things on her own. I try only to give up and let her get it wrong when she doesn't get my explanation.
[Reply]
The Mayor
Wednesday, 3rd March 2010 at 1:29 am
I could add my anecdotal evidence at this point, but I'm not sure how to divvy up my 6 kids born over 17 years into the correct birth orders ( isn't there some sort of formula?)
The baby, at 12, still acts like the baby.
[Reply]
Stephanie
Wednesday, 3rd March 2010 at 5:34 am
Talk about motivation to me to keep pushing my kids to do things on their own. Fortunately my oldest is highly imaginative and creative, and really doesn't need my help in that. I think I do well in encouraging to solve her own problems, but that's because I've always considered that a great way to learn. I try to just give input and some direction rather than solutions when I can.
My son is a bit harder to leave to solving his own problems, as he's not nearly so bold by nature. I get it… he's so much like me as a child it's amazing. I only hope I can help him to deal better with the shyness and such that I had and see in him. We'll see.
[Reply]
Domestiquette
Thursday, 4th March 2010 at 4:54 pm
I loved this. When my daughter was small, i watched my MIL insisting on "helping" her do the block-shape puzzle thing. "it isn't good for them to get frustrated," she said. Annoyed me no end. I never helped her except to encourage her to finish it.
She never learned to finish it (or even tried) until she was three and her 9-month-old brother could do it faster, which made her mad.
It was a huge insight into why my husband had a hard time sticking with college, or with anything – he still has a huge problem finishing any kind of project that takes longer than a few hours. I blame this all on my MIL, conveniently. ;-P
[Reply]
Lawyer Mom
Friday, 5th March 2010 at 9:40 pm
"Firstborns are far more likely to be conservative and influenced by authority than laterborns.
How much more likely? 3 to 4 TIMES more likely."
Hmm. My one and only son did not get this memo and I know his teacher sure wishes he had. (Maybe because he's an only child?)
[Reply]
DomesticallyChlnged
Monday, 15th March 2010 at 7:09 pm
Oh gawd I just KNEW I screwed up Thing1, I knew it!!!!! My worst nightmare, coming true… a Preppy, Republican, Born-Again Christian!!!!!
Wait… I know that is NOT possible given her DNA pool. Or is my rebellion gene so strong that she will have to rebel against everything we hold dear??? NOOOOO!
[Reply]
Leave a Comment