A very insightful and very important lesson for young researchers! You might dedicate years and years of your life to a certain idea, you even may find a significant result, but in the end this result still can be practically irrelevant as a whole.
Daniel Fernald Wrong. The finding is about averages not single cases. Please learn statistic, don't be stubborn. Of course the effect size in this study laughable.
Daniel Fernald Can you elaborate your point? What do you mean with "unsettling" and "not useful" with respect to the discussed finding? Btw, I wrote the effect size is laughable, hence may be (or even sjould be?) considered useless in terms of practical value, but nonetheless it seems to be a valid finding.
No one said last borns or only children are destined to be slow idiots. The whole family could be very smart. I think they’re just talking about overall how does birth order affect iq relative to their siblings.
Ahh yes we can thank Socrates for that if you were educated in any Westernized country. In Catholic school they made us stand up and answer. That little bit of pressure also taught the skill of "thinking on your feet" a soft skill perfected by many a Catholic student 😆
@@madfoxcityemnau6414 Ah Yes, it also taught you to obey and do as your told… OR Every student in the U.S stands at attention whilst his/her hand held tightly against their heart and recites the same gibberish everyday. 😮
Citriano Torres Thanks for making that comment, I was about to leave the video, and I stayed because of this, and it was really a terrific, happy ending, thanks.
Science has taken a nose dive. Critical thinking is not at its best. Just take a small look a nutrition science. Studies hidden, thrown out or totally misinterpreted to align with an agenda. This professor is doing his best to get his students to think outside the box. Good on him.
Nutritional science has the worst reputation in the scientific community for those reasons. You may be interested in a New York Times article: "How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat" It explains how prominent researchers were bribed to blame saturated fats for heart disease.
@@timearly5226 I remember when that started happening. I grew up with a "health nut", label reader mom, so when all the "low fat" products started showing up I didn't buy into what they were selling. Plus, when I read the labels it was quite obvious what was happening. Besides, I loved fat, and knew it was just fine. We grew up on whole milk and butter. I would skim the cream off the top of the milk and make whipped cream, or butter. It's quite yummy, I highly recommend it.
It was too obvious you were faking being that stupid. You properly used a contraction, you didn’t have a run-on sentence, and you also recognized that you were stupid, at a purported 74, without calling the scientific findings “gay” or “stupid”. You were too obvious lol
Sometimes the oldest sibling of a large family, as was my case, has to participate in parenting the younger siblings. It is like the siblings grew up in different families as truly their lives were much different. For instance by the time only a couple kids are left often the parents have more money. Just my thought. Thank-you
If you are a Robert Sapolsky fan or student. There's no way you can be be stupid. No one is calling you stupid by the way. Robert Sapolsky is is an intelligent and kind guy. Sometimes it is better to be kind than right though.
2.3 IQ points turns out to not be that trivial difference from a cognitive perspective but when you look at a actual long term life outcome among a people you'll find out that it's absolutely negligible
5 лет назад
In the comments: clueless people who didn't watch the whole video
Romário Rios yes. that & just plain ignorant, self-centered/narcissistic yokels who like to write stuff that belittles the more intelligent people in the video & tries to make these commenting trolls look like they aren't fools (but ironically, in doing so, they only succeed in making bigger fools of themselves!!! LOL!)
I'm more interested in the IQ difference between the second born and third born; If you could study that, then ALL of your questions about the first study would be answered.
Parents favor the first born. Continually treating the first born as though they are the most important and treating the younger ones as less important will result in this phenomenon
perhaps it has something to do with the level of stress in the mother during pregnancy? The first pregnancy can said to be in general less stressful. During the second pregnancy the stress of having to raise a child and do all the work at home is probably impacting the metabolism of the mother. Higher stress levels might cause a change in how the fetus is exposed to stress hormones and therefore impact the brain development. Just a thought.
I also know quite a few latter born who are much more intelligent than the older siblings. I will say my older brother has a slightly higher internal drive, i contribute it to him not questioning what he is doing and why he is doing it, as much as myself.
Just for the record, averagely you will differ 2.3 IQ points. But for individual cases your older sibling can still be 10 points dumber or smarter than you, because he got better genes or whatever. I personally don't get why he did not give the standard deviation between IQ of siblings, because that would clear things up as well. Still very interesting vid :)
@@kenanaojacob2854 I agree. This person has no idea what he’s talking about. Also, this guy just proved his point by asking for standard deviation. Sapolsky’s message was how insignificant these findings are and how they are so small they don’t reach a standard deviation. 🤣
When you said "very statistically reliable" I assumed you meant "significant". And if a difference is statistically significant, it already implies it is a big difference enough. So you got me bamboozled.
Some will power and a lot of won't are more useful than IQs that are adjustable anyway. It's not a good thing to study in isolation because anyone can change environments and be "someone else" better suited to the new context.
sometimes the first born gets the military...and the second gets left alone to learn...the learned one or the second is definitely the brighter from what a childhood witness has scene?
Fue Fact: Also the length time a mother breast feeds her children determines her child's adult IQ will be. it's in Robert Sapolsky's Masterpiece book Behave: The Biology Of Humans At Our Best And Worst. ☮️
Great to think about, but the problem is the professor isn't a paper so even if he doesn't say a 'significant increase' then you assume it be to true otherwise why would he bring it up. It's outside of the box thinking in an institution where inside the box thinking is the be all and end all.
2.3 points isn't much when comparing two individuals. That kind of difference like Prof. said could come from one sneeze and distraction. However if data had 250 000 test subjects like Prof. said it's clearly significant amount no question about it. 250 000 is statistically insane amount of test subjects..
um...okay. please explain why my sister and i had the same IQ. I was nursed by mother until 2 years old. You mentioned in a Behave lecture that the longer a mother who nurses her child for a longer time increases the the child's IQ. Interestingly, according to a counselor who specializes in mitochondrial diseased kids with high IQs and learning disabilities, many of her clients/patients are off the charts in IQ. but she mentioned some of her patients could not read. i figure high IQ's possibly, are a survival trait. Those who could smith a better spear head were useful to the tribe and kept out of combat situations. Mito kids tend to have low ATP levels, and have to compensate for the lack of energy. I was a scrawny failure to thrive child, that was real fun to live up to as a kid. i was also too short to be a Stormtrooper. (it's okay, I'm here to rescue you. ) My MELAS syndrome onset at age 35. Dr. Enns in pediatrics genetics at Stanford University Medical Hospital. Oddly my sister has no learning disabilities and has a pHD and passed her BAR exam and is a lawyer for a major food company protecting their intellectual rights. i on the other hand have 2. Dysgraphia my hand writing is a sloppy mess no matter how much i practiced my alphabet. and school teachers knew how to hit a kid below the belt and make them feel bad about themselves, and slow processing, i never could finish those 100 math question tests in under 1 or 2 minutes, i could get the answers right, no problem. The public education system made feel like i was stupid. despite having an IQ that could have got me into MENSA. My mother suggested i join it when i was a Senior in High School.i asked why my sister wasn't in MENSA and my mother said "it's only for men. did you know 65% of the members of MENSA have black back hair?" i was like "nope. i will not join a sausage party for for geniuses." i didn't want to join a sexist boys club for geniuses. i wanted to meet intelligent women. I thought it was kind of stupid and sexist of MENSA from excluding women from joining. This was in the mid-1990's. i was like "why would they exclude intelligent women? it would make more sense if they encouraged smart dudes to be with smart women." 7 or 8 MELAS syndrome stroke like episodes later, and my IQ is still higher than average. So most people tend to misunderstand me. Still. it's gotten to be mildly annoying to be misunderstood all the time..
Very interesting! To me the conclusion would be that siblings have almost the same level of intelligence... Which is not really surprising but still relevant. Did this researchers investigate the gender effect ? What is the importance of the gender (think of level of competitivity potential between sexes) of the first vs. the gender of the second child, or even the third, fourth etc? For example, my older sister of almost the same age (16 month difference) had a pretty parallel cognitive development with me: as an example, she began to speak at about the same moment as I did. Maybe because of a certain competition for attention and praise from our parents. Finally I ended being the one with the highest IQ and could study whatever I wanted. My sister became a nurse, also with a very high IQ, but with far less self-confidence than me (which is also a factor which influences the outcome of IQ tests)... I do not really know what this gets me too, but maybe it's interesting to brainstorm about this... ;)
Maybe it's not statistically relevent. But people with ASD show a slightly higher than avarage IQ than allistic people, and ASD is more often seen in latter borns. So maybe it has to do with co occuring conditions as well, at least a little bit.
2.3 iq points would still mean that the older sibling is 5 months ahead of the younger sibling at 18 years old. I don't see how that's not significant.
Now if we could only get Jordan Peterson to attend Robert Sapolsky's lectures (& JP keep his mouth shut for long enough to take it on board) social media might just start to change for the better.
Sibling rivalry will cause the first born to dominate second born. Individual cases where large differences in IQ exist, should correlate with the severity of the dominance, resulting in higher overall depression of the dominated including their IQ.
Here's what's more important: what is The Offspring count between firstborns and the rest of them? I already know, because I'm a first born :-) and I also know that that is the true dilemma at hand
6:04 How did they control for the fact that the first foetus died and the second foetus survived with a "first child IQ"? How could they avoid the ecological fallacy? I mean, they could say that these "atypical firstborns" (let's call them) had on average the same IQ as "typical firstborns", but since no one could measure the "first foetuses'" IQs (because they died in utero) how can they get the intra-familial contrasts? This is the same criticism that plagued almost all of the earlier Birth Order research.
@@LuvThyMind29 :: He asks if it’s even consequential. It’s an average of 2.3 IQ points. It’s almost negligible, especially if you’re dealing with higher IQ ranges.
The scenario re: the 2nd born higher I.Q. until 12, the first born higher after 12 has a simple explanation. Let's say there's a 2 year gap between children. The younger at 3 years old is constantly around the 5 year old, thus absorbing from and elevating to the level of the older sibling ( It's not unlike a physical analogy regarding an athlete performing better if playing against better competition ). This remains true until the younger is 12 because at 14, the older child despises the younger being around and 'ruining' the older sibling's 'teenage' activities. Therefore the older avoids being around the nagging younger sibling. This ends the younger benefitting from being around a 2 year wiser sibling, the I.Q. of the younger sibling slowly reverts to a more age related level. The older is in a more challenging school environment heading into high school at 14, so the I.Q. accelerates somewhat due to more difficult studies. Most of us say it's a bit of a leap from 8th grade junior high school to the freshman year in high school. Also, at 14, the older sibling is now in the constant company of older students, gaining from them the way the younger sibling gained from the older previously. ( I should get an 'A' for the semester with genius like this).
Actually a 2 IQ points difference is relatively big if you consider the older and later siblings IQ are normally distributed with similar variance. In the extreme right end (the higher IQs) the difference will be much more pronounced
I would love to know how the age gap between children influences the difference in IQ. Is the decrease in IQ smaller when the age gap is greater? I wonder because I suspect that the difference in IQ grows at first and then decreases as the age gap becomes greater. The influence a older sibling has on the upbringing of younger siblings might decrease as the age gap increases simply because the interaction between siblings decreases from a certain age.
My guess before he gives the answer, the first born has to explain everything to the younger siblings which makes them look more closely at problems and that's what increases their ability to concentrate on IQ tests.
The first born has to learn things themselves that they then teach to their younger siblings. The younger get the advantage of their older siblings knowledge and that is why they exceed their older sibling when they are 12. At 18 the early knowledge doesn't have the same effect over others their age because everyone has more or less caught up by then.
A mention of what also can happen KsYg7y4oayw&t=10m45s 1. As you said: Older sibling gets to pave the road, be the model and gain first hand experience in life, also teach/reflect it back. 2. Displacement aggression in primates; the weaker gets the stick - if older or bigger members of the group suffer a humiliation, bullying or a defeat, they can lash out at those weaker or closer to them that allows... Definately a component of dominating the weaker sibling, belittling, or lashing out of own frustrations. 3. Younger get spoiled, older get "favourited" / one gets more candy to shutup the other gets to do stuff, guess which is more beneficial? Too much stress or unfair comparison to older sibling can cause breaking down, going back or becoming depressed.
So damned annoying. He states categorically that 2.3 points of IQ is too small to be meaningful and yet he doesn't suggest what minimum ought to be noteworthy. So much easier to criticize than to assert.
@@TheDoctornaut Even today, only children are commonly stereotyped as "spoiled, selfish, and bratty". ... In China, perceived behavioral problems in only children has been called the Little Emperor Syndrome and the lack of siblings has been blamed for a number of social ills such as materialism and crime. They are an unreliable sample. I know 2 that are close to me that have larger than usual families. 5 and 6 offspring . Perhaps it's not a big enough pool but I'd say if one was to dig a bit only in China where numbers are restricted only children tend not to want to have one child.
I think they need to do some isolated studies or a larger-reaching meta-analysis. I’d bet some money on it that these childhood dynamics aren’t the only thing out there. This doesn’t consider families that had twins or two children very close in age, making the age difference and parental exposure nearly negligible. I can think of other instances where that “first kid gets the most parental exposure” doesn’t work either. It’s definitely not the precedent for every family. I’m not butt-hurt or anything, I’m just pointing out that that study does not consider everything.
I'm the youngest of 6 sisters and 1 brother and I'm more intelligent than all of them. I'm not boasting or bragging at all, but I just happen to be the brainy one, the nerd in my family if you will.
The Doctornaut: What utter bullshit, The Doctornaut > I did not boast, I simply stated an obvious fact that's applicable only to me and my own family and personal circumstance. > Yes It is anecdotal because my comment only applies to me and my own family. (so of course it's going to be anecdotal) > I watched the whole video, and I missed nothing. > I'm still the clever-clogs in my family, simply because I was born this way. My whole family would agree with me. They always call me "The brains of the family"
Not being pro or con here...IQ is the ability to learn and not what is actually learned...and that doesn't even touch on applicable intelligence. This discussion is a waste of time.
She has a finger in the nose, another has a finger in his eye, and another has a finger in his mouth. All at the same time. Yuck!😝 This room would have Howie Mandel running the other way.
Im #3 of six, and the least intelligent. #6 is the most intelligent and then #4, #1, #2, #5. If any of my siblings disagree I remind them that I am the tallest and strongest!! Were mostly in our 70s.
