There is a theory in psychology books concerning birth order that shows first borns are wired to achieve, middle borns seek diplomacy, and later borns are risk takers. Based on observation of my personality and my sibling's personalities, I feel these assumptions are not true. Even though these assumptions have no substantial correlation with birth order and personality, many popular books suggest these findings according to our textbook. My sister, who is the oldest sibling of us three, is quiet and not incredibly outgoing. However, she is not independent too often and enjoys not being alone. The biggest personality problem I see with her is that she can never make important decisions. She tends to let others make decisions instead amongst groups even if they let her decide for fear of making a mistake. I feel this hinders her ability to achieve and decreased her chance of graduating college in four years because she could not decide for a few years what she wanted to with her life. With myself being a middle child, I feel I do have a good sense of diplomacy because I am an easy-going, type B personality. However, I do not see diplomacy as a "character label" for myself and I have other qualities that define me better than diplomacy. My younger brother is the youngest child of our family and he is definitely not a risk-taker. He is still maturing and trying to become independent as well. I think independence correlates with risk taking to a certain degree.
Birth Order doesn't mean anything towards personality
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/187293