'Only Child/Oldest/Middle/Baby, thaaat explains everything.' What's up with that?

Believe it or not (or maybe it is really obvious), I am an only child. A couple of my good friends are only children too, but I realize now that we are a minority (no I am not going to lobby or whine about oppression and equality stuff). Honestly I think we all turned out all right. Yeah I am usually a quiet person who enjoys privacy, but thats not a big deal.

But what bothers me is that twice in recent memory, after someone learned that fact about myself, someone has said 'that explains everything.' Once seemed to be meant rather derogatory (Julie, if by some crazy twist of fate you read this, it wasn't you). What does that really explain?

Basically I am wondering if there is some stigma about only children. Is there a biased against us? Are they considered spoiled (I don't think I am)? Are they considered socially deficient (yeah, I am a loner, but so what?)? Do only children need some sort of help (I think I can take care of myself)? What does it really explain?

But that alone is sort of only scratching the surface. I also wonder what other effects siblings and the order thereof has on people. Does it really make people who they are or is it just one small factor among millions of other that make us develop? I really don't know,

Honestly I think it is a large factor in how we grow up, but it can be very specialized (for example, the oldest who didn't have a sibling until he was 17 is very different from the oldest getting a sibling when he is 3). And with all the variations, it is rather hard to come to a clear system of how people will be, but I need to give this more thought (hence the thread).

 

I have a sister that's 7 years younger than me and I'm a loner too. Psychological studies have suggested that children born more than 5 years apart behave more like only children because they'll never really compete for the same things. However, if this is true, my sister (15) should also behave like.... whatever an only child should behave like. However, she's the complete anthesis of me. I've never been to a big party in my life (biggest one I've been to was ~15 people in my fan force). But she just threw a big party while my parents were gone with 60+ people.

So.... I'm not sure where I stand.

 

I'm an only child.

The stigma--the joke is that only children are spoiled and self-centered. We never had to compete for a parent's affection (providing they had affection to begin with.) Typically we had to share less, and were given more.

I've never heard anything about this fact leading to the individual's probability of being an introvert or an extrovert. Personally I'm a very loud person, I don't consider myself spoiled and I'm generally not self-centered.

-Seldon

 

I think as well it boils down to the interactive skills you have with others. My mother is an only child but had two first cousins of the same age whom she considers sisters; yet I know of only a few friends who are only children and to a degree, it "does show." Now, I couldn't say for certain it's not simply a self-fulfilling prophecy, the "ah, of course" mentality others have towards you, but I suspect it may be like most things, an amalgamation of fact and fiction.

If I think about my friends, I know very few kids who are only children, and the ones I do know I was introduced to via someone else. I wonder, being as how I've a sibling 2 years my junior, could that have impacted in part upon the people I gravitate to?

E_S

 

I'm an only child and I'm going to be honest.

I wasn't a very popular kid at school. (still not) I was too sensitive, and I didn't know when to stop arguing. (or trying to insult people back when they insulted me) I got rid of many friends because they used to pretend they weren't my friend in public, and even tried to pretend I was their enemy by being the leader of a "gang" of kids making fun of me. I was made fun of so much it wasn't funny.

So yeah, you could say being an only child made me have serious social problems.

 

I'm an only child. Biggest difference I've noticed in myself v others is that I'm alot more stubborn/intractable and less likely to care about geting along with everyone.

 

To explain the oldest/middle/baby phenomenon, some of it has to do with how parents raise kids. When most parents raise the first child, it's all new to them, so they overstep their bounds to protect the little bundle of joy. This happens through every stage of that child's life since usually the oldest is "the first one to _________". Parents will generally be stricter with that kid than subsequent kids. Younger kids elicit less of a reaction from parents with each subsequent kid as they will have developed a "we've seen this all before" attitude and know exactly how to handle things. In other words, the parents' attitude towards bringing up kids has an effect on each child.

For example, I'm the oldest of four, and my youngest sibling spent his youth getting away with stuff I could have only dreamed of. Little bugger...

 

Im the youngest of four. Guess what? I am selfish, manipulative, unorganized and spoiled. Almost solely because of my birth order.

 

Well you'd feel right at home among Chinese. Only child is all we've got.

And being a society wide phenomenon, I think it makes any statement about only kids whether they're complementary or derogatory hollow.

 

Yep. I'm the eldest of 3 and that's the way I see it. I also have 3 kids of my own, and we certainly are less uptight about things with #3 (what he eats, what he climbs on etc).

Our 3 are close in age thogh (presently 4, 3, 1) so they interact well together and in social circles, though the eldest is reserved, stand-offish until she's fully assessed the situation. It's this change in parental attitude that is the most likely cause of the common traits (and possibly stereotypes) of first/midle/youngest/only child syndrome.

 

From "The Family Constellation" in Fundamentals of Adlerian Psychology by Rudolph Driekurs (1933; 1989)):

The theory that each person has an innate individuality from birth would appear to find confirmation in the fact that children in the same family are different from each other...

Upon closer examination, however, it is found that each child has an essentially different position in the family and must see all the circumstances of his childhood in an entirely different light...

Let us begin with the eldest child. The outstanding fact of his childhood is that at first, though only for a limited period, he was the only child. While he is the only child he is likely to get far too much spoiling. He is the center of attraction and the special object of his parents' care. Then he suddenly finds himself in the midst of a tremendous experience. A brother or sister is thrust upon him. Even if the first child is already a few years old he is hardly ever able to guage the situation correctly...So, feeling that he has been set aside, the eldest child frequently shows understandable jealousy when another child is born, even if before the birth of this child he longed for a brother or sister.

Even if under the most favorable circumstances two children of the same parents manage to live together in apparent harmony they may become involved in a competition which, though not always openly declared is none the less deadly. The elder child tries either to preserve his superiority or, if it is already endangered, at least to prevent the younger child from attaining superiority...

What has been said about the first child suggests the situation which the second child meets. He never loses sight of the brother or sister who has got a short start of him. He fully realizes that the elder child is endeavoring to impose his superiority on him. He resents the imputation that he is less important. He regards everything the other child can do and he himself cannot do as an indication of his own inferiority. So every second child tries to catch up with the first child. This explains why second children are generally much more active than first children, whether they choose the line of useful achievement or naughtiness.

The outcome of the competition between the first and second child depends mainly on the support each child gets from others. The one who has the parents on his side is, of course, in a stronger position...The child who emerges victorious from the struggle is more likely to be successful throughout the remainder of life than the other, who will always accept defeat too eadily. The duel between the two first children generally decides the whole subsequent course of their lives.

As frequently observed, however, one child is not always victorious in everything and the other defeated in everything. One achieves superiority in one activity and the other in another. When this happens we have the plainest proof that the development of individual character is influenced even in the smallest detail by the attitude to environment adopted in childhood.

...This [fundamental difference in nature and character between the two children] becomes easy to understand if we remember that each of the two tries to achieve superiority in the very field where the other encounters difficulties. The younger child in particular develops an almost uncanny power for detecting the elder child's weak points and proceeds to win praise from parents and teachers by achieving brilliant successes where the other has failed...

The difference in character, temperament and interest between the first and second child often seems to be based on inherited capacities, especially if each of the children appears to take after a different parent. But a child's psychological attitude can make the physical likeness to one parent more pronounced...

To a far greater extent, however, similarlity of nature and character is the outcome of the child's special training. It is true that we cannot tell beforehand why the