Children From Small Families Fare Better Than Children From Large Families-Here's Why!
81Small Families Provide The Best Environment for Children to Grow Up In
Children born into small families fare better than children from large families because their parents are usually better educated, more liberal, and more affluent. There are more resources per child in a small family than there is in a large family. As parents have more emotional resources to devote to the care and nurturing of children in a small family, this translate into children from small families receiving more attention than do children from large families who often do not receive adequate and individualized attention from their parents. Children from large families are often left to their own devices and lead a hardscrabble and`an arduously rough existence, living at the most basic level.
Children in small families are exposed to more educational, intellectual, and cultural opportunities such as theatre, piano/dancing/ singing lessons, overseas travel, opera, and going to fine restaurants to taste different cuisine. This exposure translates into better/higher/more advanced allround education. As a result of this exposure by their parents, children from small families are more cultured, knowledgeable, sophisticated, and urbane than children from large families. Children from small families have cultural and intellectual savvy that children from large families do not possess.
Because they are exposed to more educational and cultural activities, children from small families want to obtain the highest education and the best job possible so that they can provide their children with those same opportunities. As they were exposed to affluence, luxury and higher culture as children, they want to high goals. The saying children from small families are used to the better things of life and live better is a truism.
On the average, children from small families are also better adjusted and know how to navigate their environment. Children from small families are more creative and self-actualized than children from large families. Children from small families are encouraged to be creative and to use their utmost potential, especially if they are only children.
Children from small families have a marked appreciation for beauty because of constant exposure to the finer things of life. Parents of small families inundate their children that there is more to life than basic food, clothing, and shelter. Parents of small families teach their children the higher human needs and feel that culture is as necessary as food, clothing, and shelter.
Children in large families, on the contrary, are often raised by their parents with just the basic, rudimentary human needs such as food, clothing, shelter, and just mere animal survival. Children from large families are not raised to appreciate the higher human needs such as the appreciation for beauty, culture, appreciation for the finer things of life, and self-actualization. These things are often beyond the purview of the average large family.
Children from large families are raised to believe that they are part of the group and that their individuality means nothing. Children from large families have a very meager material existence with no concept of affluent living and privacy, often living in packs. Children in large families have very little sense of individuality and self-love. Children in large families are taught that the self means nothing. Concepts of self-actualization and self-fulfillment are totally foreign to children raised in large families.
Children from small families know that they have their parents on their side as their primary sphere of influence are their parents. As a result of intense parental attention and guidance, they are steered into proper activities. Because they are steered into proper activities, there is a less likelihood to indulge in deleterious and delinquent behavior as children from large families are more likely to do. Recent sociological studies show that delinquency is more prevalent in children from large families than it is in children from small families because the former are supervised less by their parents.
Sociological studies confirm that in the large family, parents do not have the physcal resources to supervise their children. They are clearly unable to devote the necessary time to a large number of children. There is clearly very little parental interaction with their children in large families. This translates into less parental supervision of their children.
In large families, it is de rigueur for children to be unsupervised and left to their own devices. Children from large families participate in less parent supervised activities than their counterparts from small families. So unstructured activities= more involvement in deleterious and delinquent activities. A friend of mine, a registered nurse, had a patient from the unpaid wards who was one of thirteen children. She relayed to me that the boy would sneak out at night and hang out on the streets until five o'clock the next morning. She further remarked that he often broke into nearby apartments, stealing articles such as radios and television sets.
Children from small families are more mature than children from large families because the ratio of adults is greater for children in a small family than it is in a large family.. Children from small families are more exposed to adult behavior as they absorb adult mannerisms from their parents which result in more mature behavior than the child with a large amount of siblings who is constantly exposed to childish gibberish, behavior, and mannerisms. Children from large families seldom interface with their parents.
In an article, one woman from a family of nine children, attested that she seldom, if ever, interacted with her mother. Children from large families have the most childish of mannerisms because they are constantly exposed to children and seldom have contact with their parents. In large families, there is little or no parental interaction with their children. Siblings rear each other in large famlies while parents raise their children in small families.
Children reared in large families are often less adultlike than children raised in small families, especially only children, who are little adults. In a study done in 1975 and 2001 by R.B. Zajonc, it confirmed that the larger the family, the less mature the intellectual environment is for all concerned. The studies further authenticated that firstborns and older children from large families have lower IQs than similiarly situated children from small families.
In small families, parents also spend time conversing and discussing things with their children in addition to helping them with their homework. In small families, it is the ADULTS who raise CHILDREN. This is the way things are supposed to be in a family.
Now, look at the large family. Parents in large families do not devote time to having a conversation and discussing things with their children. Parents in large families do not help their children with their homework. Children in large families are told either to swim or sink. In large families, parents DO NOT raise their children. CHILDREN rear CHILDREN in large families which is totally inverse logic and unnatural. This is why children in large families are less intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically developed than children from small families.
When parents raise children in small families, they impart adult values, wisdom,knowledge, and experience as they are more developed than their children. This in turn, help children develop faster as the parents have more to give. Contrast this to children reared in large families, in large families as I have said before, children rear each other. No sibling is as developmentally mature and knowledgeable as parents are.
However, in large families, siblings rear each other. As a consequence of no parental guidelines and sibling rearing, there is no adult and advanced knowledge being imparted to the children. Siblings are children themselves and are not on the same level as adults and no child can teach and educate another child like an adult can. A sibling is on a lower developmental level than a parent is and children who are reared and taught by siblings are not as knowledgeable and adept as children are who are raised and taught by parents as they have the most life experience.
In schools, it is the children from small families who are the most behaved and are high academic achievers. In my elementary school class, all the honor roll students were from small families and the top three honor students were only children( I was one of them)! Contrast this to children from large families who were often behavioral problems and who were low academic achievers.
To clarify this point, an overwhelming majority of C, C- and D students in my elementary school were from large families. No one from a large family was ever on the honor roll in my elementary school. In fact, 90% of the students attending summer school regularly at my elementary school were from large families.
Parents who have small families value education and academic achievement more than parents from large families. Parents from large families value street smarts, cunning, and instinctualism over intellectual and academic achievement. The concept of intellectualism and academic achievement is not stressed in the large family. Children in large families do possess street savvy and strong survival instincts.
In a study done by Lillian Gelmont and Frances Moralla in 1973, there was a strict correlation between large family size and low academic achievement. The study confirmed that children from large families tend to make poorer showings on intelligence tests and other educational measures as opposed to children from small families who excelled on intelligence tests and other educational measures. For example, I had to teach one of my cousins, who was one of eight children, to read on a rudimentary level. Her parents never taught her how to read. There was a classmate(one of nine children) who was thirteen years old (being left back thrice) who could not do simple multiplication and division tables. She neither could spell properly nor write in complete sentences.
Children from small families are usually popular with their peers and have more friends than children from large families. Children from large families tend to have little, if no, friends. Children from large families are often insular and parochial, depending solely upon their siblings for friendship and companionship. For example, my mother, who is one of ten children, has no friends outside her siblings while I have friends from outside the family.
Children from large families are usually looked down upon and derided by their peers. Children from large families have few, if any, friends as most children prefer not to associate with them as they are viewed as inferior and disadvantaged. There was a classmate of mine in elementary school who is one of twenty children. The children in my class made fun of her because she was impoverished, unkempt, and did not receive any home training from her parents. She had hardly any clothes and she and her siblings depended solely upon donations from the more advantaged parents at my elementary school.
I, an only child, befriended her and invited her to my house. She ate one of my toys, a cardinal red bird, and gathered all of my toys and held them as she had no toys at her house. She had no friends other than me. The other children regularly ostracized and laughed at her and her siblings, holding their noses as they walked by. I, on the other hand, had plenty of friends who visited me often.
Children from large families are viewed as poor and disadvantaged by peers and teachers alike. They are right, of course, children from large families are poor and disadvantaged in more ways than one. Teachers and peers usually have higher expectations of children from small families than they do of children who come from large families. Children from small families are expected to attend college, have a career, and live an upper middle class or better lifestyle.
I was told all my life by my parents and teachers that I was expected to attend college and to have a career and there was no reason why I could not achieve those things. On the contrary, children from large families are usually expected not to achieve much and not to expect much from life. They are taught by their parents, teachers, peers, and society not to expect much and to settle what they are given.
Children from large families are also taught that they are nothing special and that they are a persona non grata. They are also not expect to achieve anything of value and not to dream big. They are also not expected to attend college or have any type of advanced education beyond that of high school. I remember one teacher saying about a sibling of the abovementioned girl who was from twenty children, " Well, she is not going to achieve much. She is nothing but trash. She is just a hoodlum. She will pregnant like her mother and end up living on welfare."
Teachers usually treat children from small families better and punish them less whereas children from large families are viewed as troublemakers, malcontents, and rowdies thus being punished more harshly. Children in small families are more likely to be teacher's pets than children from large families who are ostracized by teachers. In my elementary school, in addition to being an honor roll student, I was also the teacher's pet for eight years in a row. Over 90% of the students in my elementary school who were subjected to corporal punishment, the dunce cap, and being sent to the principal office in addition to being told to stay after school were children from large to very large families.
To summarize, children in small families are MORE ADVANTAGED than children in large families. This is a sociological, economical, and psychological fact of life. Sociological studies authenticate that children from small families end up with more advanced and tertiary education which lead to higher professional and executive careers than children from large families.
Children from large families are the MOST DISADVANTAGED socioeconomically, psychologically, and intellectually. Because of their large number, their parents could ill afford to provide them with more than just the rudiments of life. Children from large families are the LEAST likely to obtain tertiary and other advanced forms of education. Children from large families have the LOWEST education attainment of all the family groups. This leads to them usually ending up on the lower rungs of the educational and career ladder.
To authenticate this, there were two articles in the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS during the 1990s which confirmed that children from small families achieved GREATER SOCIOECONOMIC AFFLUENCE in adulthood than children from large families. The article further substantiated that children from large families ended up the POOREST SOCIOECONOMICALLY. The second article verified that children from large families suffered MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESSES and were MORE PATHOLOGICAL than children from small families. Small families are beautiful, civilized, and humane and are more beneficial in children's development and their sense of self. Small families are more advanced and modern while the large family is more atavistic, antiquarian, and out of step in the 21st century! Thankfully, small families are here to stay and large families are on its way to extinction!
For Further Reading
 | Amazon Price: $9.64 List Price: $17.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $6.99 List Price: $15.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $52.08 List Price: $22.50 |
 | Amazon Price: $24.98 List Price: $25.95 |
Survey Regarding This Hub
Describe your family size
See results without votingDescribe your childhood situation
See results without votingCommentsLoading...
In response to Mom Kat. studies show that children in small families receive more and better parental attention than children from large families. Family size is the main determinant regarding how much attention parents pay to their children.
Psychological and sociological studies show that in large families, parents cannot give their children the attention they need. Parents do not have the emotional resources to raise a large family. Parents in large families USUALLY DO NOT raise their children. They delegate the raising of children to THEIR OLDEST SIBLINGS. THE OLDEST SIBLINGS in large families RAISE their younger siblings and act as THE PARENT. Parents who have small families are more attentive, nurturing, and more involved in the raising of their children.
I couldn't disagree with this article more. It is FULL of generalizations. To say that a child will be less intelligent and more ill behaved simply because they have more siblings is ridiculous. The author stated that he/she is an only child and is clearly writing this article with severe bias. Although the size of family can have an impact on many of the material aspects of a child's life it is not a dictator of the type of parenting a child will receive. I know several large families personally, one in particular who has nine children and their children are not only brilliant but some of the most well behaved children I've ever known.
Wow! How far from the truth can you be. I have 10 children. 2 in college, 3 more (triplets) waiting to choose which college they will attend. 3 of the 5 were valedictorians, and the other two had a 3.8 GPA. They are leaders, played 2 or 3 Varsity sports each. They know how to share, and get along with others. They are creative, talented and gifted. On the other hand my friend is a nanny to a couple where each parent makes over 100,000.00 and they have 2 children which they have NO idea how to parent. Their nanny does everything...where do the children learn family values, morales, LOVE. Coming from a small family does NOT guarantee intelligence or success in life. My children are well behaved because they are taught to be well behaved. They are well rounded because they are loved. They have a large family that supports and loves them. Wow!
To famersdozen: Your situation is only a minute percentage of children from large families who DO attend college and postgraduate education. Studies show that children from large families are LEAST LIKELY to attend college and other forms of higher education. All the large families I know were classmates from large families had to take menial and ordinary jobs because they were unable to attend college.
Children from small families, no matter what their grades were,are more likely to attend college and go on to postgraduate education. All of the people that I know from small families attended college and postgraduate school and have excellent jobs.
There were no valedictorians that I knew that came from large families. Just the opposite, those from large families tend to be at the bottom of their classes or had teenage pregnancies and had to leave school altogether. All the valedictorians and salutitarians in my high school and college came were either only children and/or from two child families.
The average parents with large families do not stress intellectualism and/or education, they are only concerned with their children's rudimentary needs and not their children's higher needs. Furthermore, despite the mythology that children from large families learn to get along and share, studies show that sibling rivalry is greatest in large families. Also, children from large families because they had little growing up, are less likely to share than children from small families who grew up more affluent.
Coming from a small family DOES guarantee intelligence and success in life because parents who have small families have more economic resources to guarantee that their children have books and are exposed to cultural things such as travel, plays, and restaurants and have monies left over for college. Parents who have small families devote more one to one time with their children. Parents who have large families, on the other hand, do not devote one to one time with their children.
In large families, parents have it EASY and DO NOT RAISE their children. That burden falls on the oldest children of the family thus depriving them of regular childhoods. Children who grew up in large families are not cognizant of normal family life in which parents raise the children. They are only exposed to children raising each other. This accounts for their more elementary and rudimentary language, environment, and mannerisms, in addition to lower intellectual development.
Children, especially daughters, raised in large families have pathologies which are not present in small families. Girls raised in large families, are more likely to have teenage pregnancies than girls from small families because of lack of parental attention and affection. Children from large families are more likely to become members of gangs and to indulge in more deleterious and delinquent activities than children from small families.
Parents from large families are not as involved in raising their children which they leave to the older siblings than parents from small families. Parents from small families are more involved in raising their children than parents from large families who are less nurturing to their children and believe that children should raise themselves. Most parents that I know who have large families have their children raise themselves much to deleterious results, believe me. It is the parents who have small families who are the most nurturing and loving of parents.
Children from small families are on the average more well behaved than children from large families because of the increased ratio of adults to children in the small family. In the small family, children are exposed to adult behavior and mannerisms more than children in large families who are surrounded by children and thus adapt more childish behavior. On a whole, children from small families fare better than children from large families in terms of intelligence, attention, development, education, and success.
Lets just look at how my morning went today. I was up showered and ready, makeup applied, nice outfit on, very presentable, with no plans to actually go anywhere. I do this everyday. I get up at 5:45. I wake up all the kids everyone of them showers. The youngest climbs in dads bed at 6:30 and reads for 15 minutes. Everyone of them has individual chores. I cook them breakfast, my husband helps. Tables are set, dishwashers emptied, dogs and cats fed. Everyone helps. I have a song teaching the Preamble of the Constitution playing on repeat, during this whole process. We all sit together, eat and then do scripture study and prayer. I have 5 teenage girls that are beautiful, typical teenagers...we are all there together. My older girls do not parent. I feel strongly that "I" chose to have these children, I am the mother. That does not mean that they don't help if there is a shoe untied, or a night that they might need to babysit here and there. Guess what, they are learning to be giving, serving, loving people. Yeah we have it easy...Obviously you have not been around very many large families and have led a very sad lonely life missing out on the joy of having siblings to play with to share in your happiness and successes. You have missed out on having groups of teenagers hanging out at your home because it is such a fun, clean, happy place to be. You have missed out on learning how to share and to get a long with others. You have missed out on having so many people love you, parents, older siblings, younger siblings that adore you. I am so sorry that you missed out on so much.
To farmersdozen: You are SO WRONG. I LOVED being from a SMALL FAMILY. As a child, I received so much love, attention, and exposure to cultural and intellectual activities which my parents could well afford. I went to dancing school and was exposed to plays. Furthermore, as a teenager, I could travel overseas which your children could not afford to do.
One does not need siblings to have a full life. In fact, studies show that children from large families are at a distinct DISADVANTAGE socioeconomically, psychointellectually, culturally, and terms of life achievement. Children from large families end up to be the poorest and less affluent people later in life while children from small families end up the most affluent.
Although I did not have siblings, I spent lots of time with my parents and assorted relatives in addition to having lots of friends. My parents stressed the importance of friendships. I did not have a lonely childhood at all. Maybe you should do more reading on the small family. You say that your children are happy. They say that to your face but you do not know what they say about you behind your back.
In high school, I knew one girl from a family of nine who told her parents "how happy she was" to their face but bitched about it constantly at school. She is now married with one child-no more. People from large families are the LEAST HAPPY. For example, my aunt, who was the third of ten children, she was the family mascot. She cared for her younger siblings, forgoing her childhood. However, she left home at sixteen and never looked back.
Large families are clearly abnormal and dysfunctional. Furthermore, the large family is going by way of the dinosaur. Intelligent and educated people have small families as it is more beneficial for children and parents alike. Enough said.
We can't travel overseas because we are from a large family? Interesting that our 2 oldest just attended the Goethe Institute in Germany and we (parents) went and picked them up and toured Germany this past summer. Clearly your generalizations on large families are wrong.
FYI: For those poor, uneducated, emotionally stunted, overwhelmed families, who YOU think may need help, here is another hub. http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Tips-to-Organize-a-
Wow! Where do I begin? My family of four children could be considered, by today's standards, to be in the "large family" category. I would whole-heartedly agree with farmersdozen. The size of the family is absolutely NOT what determines a successful person. My children range in age from 8 to 14. They are bright, enthusiastic, creative, and well-adjusted. They are problem solvers because I CHOOSE to let them solve many of their own problems. They are courteous and think about how their actions affect people around them because people in large families have to learn how to get along. They are smart and excel in school. They work well with others. They are good sports. We still read together every night. We have dinner each evening as a family. We take family vacations and spend time together because we genuinely like being together. Even my teenage and preteen sons look forward to Family Game Night and reading scriptures together nightly as a family. I consistently receive compliments from strangers in public when we are out together as a family because they are so well behaved. I am living it, so don't tell me how "disadvantaged" my children are to come from a large family. I deliberately chose to have each one of my children because I knew my family wouldn't be complete without every single one of them. They are nurtured and loved and taught right from wrong. I know each one of them inside and out and can almost predict what each will do in any given situation. I have taken the time to really get to know them and their personalities and they are amazing people. I can honestly say the world would not be the same without them.
I am a teacher and have seen MANY children from small families who are the "victims" of helicopter parents. These parents ARE ever-present, as you said. They swoop in at the first sign of trouble or discomfort to make everything perfect for their children. They fill their child's day so full of extra curricular activities - sports, dance, music lessons, etc. None of these things are harmful in and of themselves, but when a child is overscheduled and overstressed, they never get a chance to just be a child. They need the opportunity to just play. They need to work out disagreements with friends without adult intervention. They need to have the opportunity to fail at something so they can learn resilience, persistence, and tenacity. I'm not saying children from small families cannot be happy or are incapable of being successful. I would NEVER make a generalization like that. But neither can YOU make the generalization that ALL large families breed ignorant, drug-addicted, teen moms. I suppose if your view of large families is so myopic, you should take your own advice and keep your own family small. Better yet, don't pass on your biases at all. Save the parenting to those of us who are open-minded enough to realize that good parenting is a learned skill and can be applied with amazing results in any size family. Happy families are consciously created and I, for one, wouldn't trade mine for the world!
Dear Momof4boys: I thank you very much for your wonderful imput regarding my hub. Even though we may disagree regarding some aspects, I welcome your discourse regarding the subject. I love to hear different opinions regarding this subject. This is America and everyone is entitled to her/his opinion. I love it as we are supposed to learn from one another! This is the purpose of hub pages and that is one of the reasons why I joined. I love to write and to have varied responses from wonderful people like you! God bless!
I come from a big family, and even a larger extended family. I am educated and I have six children.I am not perfect this I will admit and neither are they. I have to take college classes all the time (post BA) and my oldest son and I walk to school together in the name of good health. I have two little ones who dress up like disney characters and chase after their older siblings. My oldest daughter is in college in NY and she complains that I should do my own taxes because she does. My middle children try to explain to me the componants of a molecule and I run a family buisness with my husband. There are books in every corner my children have traveled here and there together and a part and they love each other and fight like cats and dogs. Their friends know they can come over and eat at our house any time and my sons work on the same job after school. I don't care that it's crazy, oh and did i mention that they maintain their gym memberships to play basketball and workout, swim and enjoy downtime with their pals and we collect library books to return each week. We also pass around a kitty to pay late fines when these books are late. Crazy chaos but love.. no family is above another. Infact do some research and find out some of our greatest leaders came from big families. My Grammer sucks but our life does not.
im 24 and the oldest of 7 the youngest is 10 years old. i started chaning nappies when i was 5, saftey pins and 5 year olds dont mix and adding a baby really dont mix, when i was 11 it became my job to change nappies, give baths, make and feed bottles, entertain younger children. all while recoving from surgery (an opertation on my leg that should have been done years earlier, a problem that was picked up at school because my mother was to busy to notice) and when i was 13 my parents had another baby so i had 2 times as many nappies. i always wore my unifom on wear what you want days because my clothes had holes and never fitted me. i finished year 12, but never had help with homework they couldn't once i got high school because it was to advance for them. my mother still neads my help and when i was 18 i organise every thing for my dads funeral from headstone to helping put him in the coffin. im 24 now with 3 kids of my own and still needs me to help with her kids and can never offer advice. i will not be having any more kids and will always think my parents are the most selfish people ever
I disagree BEING ONE OF THOSE CHILDREN NEGLECTED IN A LARGE FAMILY. My mother did the same fight as the lady with the eight kids. Wait until they grow up. You are neglecting them and paying attention to you three youngest the most. All the rest are being waysided and abused. Stop lying. Tell the truth. You arent loving and paying attention to all your kids.
What ur saying is so true well at least in my family i bearly had a childhood and my younger siblings can't even be bothered cleaning their rooms. as a child if i complained i would hear "thats what u get for being part of a big family" from my dad & "if u think ur life is hard imagine how ur grandma felt she was the youngest of 13 and when she was a baby her bed was a dresser draw next to the fire" from my mum.
i still rush threw my dinner, as a kid only the 2 finish would get 2nds. im also not big on sharing. i give blood, but never give money to charities. This might seem harsh to everyone but growing up in a large poor family u don't just give stuff away to someone cause they are having a sook about there life
I have to disagree...I raised eight children...and my oldest was valedictorian at her college (University of Michigan) I just wrote a hub on raising 8 kids...you might appreciate it.
To Enlydia Listener: Your family is the rare exception. Most oldest children of large families DO NOT ATTEND COLLEGE, they have to work to support their parents and younger siblings. As I have stated time and time again, oldest children in large to very large families raise their younger siblings and thus forfeit their own childhoods and adolescence. I see the large family as outmoded and atavistic. Small familes are better for the parents and children all around. Children in small families receive better parental attention economically, emotionally, and physically. Children from large families CLEARLY do not achieve as much socioeconomically as children from small families do. Children from large families end up to be MOST ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED throughout life than children from small families.
I agree with mom kat she is right if any child not got any attention towards a parent so he|she will not be able to got there love properly
I come from a large family and I have to agree just from my own experiences. I never really felt like I was parented. There were too many kids for my mother to really spend any time with us. She had too much to do. There was also too little money for many things that we wanted. I was the second youngest and did get more attention as my older siblings left home. But I basically had to raise myself.
Why are the research quotes from your article mainly derived from the 1970s? Where is your research that is not 40 years old?
Your article could be rewritten: Children in white families fare better than children in minority families. You see, all of your generalizations would apply equally to this statement as well.
Based on the writing style and grammar found in this article, I presume that the author (according to his own logic) is one of several dozen children. Please. If you would like to convince the world that smaller families are better in that their children have greater educational opportunities, you have done yourself no favors.
Anecdotally, I am one of seven children and in my early twenties. I took advantage of many opportunities to travel to Europe, Mexico, and all throughout the US as a teen, had far more childhood extra-curricular activities than any child needs, and am now a physician.
So call this the exception, if you like- but substantiate your claims. I'm just not convinced you will be able to do this; most of the young adults that I have met from large families are well-educated and well-traveled. Some are concert-level musicians. Some are lawyers, professors, or stay-at-home mothers of their own growing families.
Perhaps it were better to write, "Children from self-motivational families fare better..." or "Children whose parents are and remain married to each other..."
Is it possible to modify the poll stems so as to get useful feedback? "I was happy because we didn't have lots of kids" and "I was miserable because I had lots of brothers and sisters" with the related intermediates is not much of a poll.
To DrO: You are one of the very few people from large families who are highly educated and successful. This situation is extremely rare indeed. Most people from large families are poor to impoverished because there is less monies allotted per child than there is in small families where there are more monies allotted per child.
Children growing up in large families are disdvantaged in more ways than one. They receive less individualized parental care. They often raise themselves. They are not exposed to cultural, intellectual, and educational activities as children from small families are.
I know this firsthand. When I attended elementary and high school, it was the children from large families who were often the poorest socioeconomically. Please read the article again. They did not participate in any type of cultural, intellectual, and educational activities of any kind. It was we children from small families who travelled, went to dancing school, attended plays, and other highly cultural and intellectual activities.
Children I know who came from large families were left to their own devices. To reiterate, you were one of the lucky ones. The average child born in a large family have an extremely precarious and hardscrabble existence. They live from hand to mouth, have poor nutrition and medical care. If it was not for outside sources, many of them would not receive ANY TYPE of medical care.
In school, children from large families are the low academic achievers because they seldom interacted with their parents and their primary interactions are with siblings. In large families, parents are preoccupied with daily survival and providing their children with only the rudiments of food, clothing, and shelter. Anything extra such as luxuries, cultural, and intellectual needs are totally unheard of in large families. Children in large families must make do and do without.
Most people I have met from large families can be described as impoverished and uneducated. Most people from large families do not attend college. They are extremely lucky if they finish secondary school. Their families are so large that parents need the children to support the family so they often take their children out of school and tell them to go to work. This is de rigeur in large families.
I do not know what dream world you are living in. Children from large families indeed do fare WORSE than children from small families who have more economic, educational, financial, and cultural advantages. Wake up to the REAL world and read some more books on the subject of the family!
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. It seems we can't get far with pat assertions about the large families we each know. Are you certain that your claims apply to large families insofar as they are large, and not specifically large families in low socioeconomic strata? I disagree with the claim that having more people around the dinner table necessarily causes abject poverty in every family. Let's try to be specific about what we are discussing.
Thank you DrO for responding. Also you are always welcome to stop by. I am not only talking about large families in the lower socioeconomic strata but also large families in the middle class. The larger the number of children, the more economic struggles the parents must endure. Even in middle class families, the economic situation is arduous. Monies must be stretched towards the necessities, forget about luxuries. Large families must make do and do without even in middle class circumstances. Thank you for responding.
i am actually really offended that someone could say such negative things about large families. almost everything that was said in this article was wrong. i can see how some things would be true for large families in other poorer countries, but this is pretty much just a stereotype of what someone from a small family thinks about children and parents from a large family. i am one of eight and myself, as well as some of my older siblings, have been able to do things such as piano, dance, sports, traveling overseas for service and for educational purposes, go to fine restaurants to experience different cuisine, and i enjoy going to the theatre to see productions of all different kinds. yet this article said that i have not? this is the real world, and i am not poor or disadvantaged, like you said i am.
how dare you say that i am not as intellectual, creative, or knowledgeable, or that children from smaller families are basically better than i am. i am in the top ten rank in my class at a competitive private school, and if that doesn't say that i work hard then I'm sorry for you. and i would like to add that my siblings and i are very mature.
my parents are amazing. they love me and my siblings more than anything in the world. and they give all of us the attention that we need and deserve, and more. i have a very close relationship with my parents, and so do all of my sibling. they give us everything we need, but we are not spoiled like only children are. my parents are very much involved in raising all of us. they do let us make some of our own choices so we can learn from our experiences, where as only children are always being told what to do by their parents in every situation because their parents try to live vicariously through them in order to get the satisfaction that they didn't get as a child. being in this family gives us a realistic outlook on life that only children completely miss because they are so caught up in what their parents want them to be doing. i am polite, kind, loving, and i have a lot of friends, and so do my siblings. i always get along with everyone and i have been able to develop close relationships with many of my teachers.
this is such a harsh generalization and stereotype of large families. i really think that you really need to get to know someone personally before you judge them based on how many children they have, or have many siblings they have. you really don't know what you are talking about until you have experienced it, and as an only child that would be impossible. my family is amazing and there is never anything but love and joy. all the things you said here do not apply to everyone, so please stop saying that they do, because obviously they don't.
To sarahjk: You have made very offensive and prejudical statements towards only children which are not true. Only children are not spoiled and are quite mature beyond the average child who has siblings. Parents of only children do not tell them what to do or live vicariously through them. This is a stupid stereotype that people with siblings have.
However, you have definitely proved my point on people from large families. I doubt that you are an honor student by the way that you have composed your sentences. You are supposed to start each sentence with a capital. Didn't you learn that at school or were your parents so preoccupied with raising you and your siblings that they omitted to teach you this simple rule of grammar and sentence structure.
What I am saying about large families are true and have been authenticated by many sociological studies. Please read some sociological books. You obviously do not want to acknowledge the truth about large families. Children from large families DO fare worse in education, attention, and achievement than children from small families for the obvious reasons: the more children in a family, the fewer parental resources physically, economically, and emotionally.
In large families, parents simply CANNOT spend individualized time with each child. I know many people from large families including relatives and classmates. All were economically disadvantaged and low academic achievers. Furthermore, they were considered uncultured and unrefined because their parents could not afford to expose them to the finer things in life. They had to make do and live from hand to mouth. On the other hand, children from small families were more affluent and thus were exposed to dancing classes, piano lessons, foreign travel, and trips to fine restaurants.
Children from large families are lucky if they eat good food. They usually consume canned and processed food. They do not receive adequate medical and dental care. They are the recipients of government sponsored health care and other types of outside care. If there was no government care or assistance, many large families would go under.
Large families are more likely to receive outside assistance than small families who are a self-sufficient and self-contained unit. In the average large family environment, intellectual and educational activities are not greatly emphasized. The average large family is lucky to survive from day to day. Large families are lucky if they can just provide rudiments for their large brood of children. Luxuries are unknown and/or unheard of in large families as opposed to small families.
Because there are hardly any books or modern equipment in the homes of large families, their children are usually low academic achievers. To reiterate, in large families, education and achievement are not greatly emphasized. Parents are busy ekeing out a tenuous living.
Regarding education, children in large families are lucky if they finish secondary education. Tertiary education is mostly unheard of for children in large families. However, children in small families, especially only children, are more likely to attend all level of tertiary education including postgraduate education. Children in large families do not attend college as their parents need them to contribute to their families' income so they are taken out of school at an early age and put to work.
Studies show that children from large families are the poorest educationally and socioeconomically. They fare horribly throughout life. Children from small families, on the contrary, fare the greatest educationally and socioeconomically. They are the most affluent of all family size types.
perhaps gmwilliams is fighting some personal crusade to justify his opinionated view of a sad and self self self small poor family syndrome.I was one of 5 with wealthy and educated parents. i would say raise your intellect level and go and do something useful. The indigenous people of the uk cant even replicate then selves with your attitude, who cares as long as the small family syndrome person finds an audience for them SELF,have they anything else?
To 1 of 5: I thoroughly enjoyed growing up in a small family. You claim that you are well educated; however, you have presented you unadulterated bias of the small families despite sociological and psychological studies which states the benefits of such families.
Children growing up in small families are better off than children from large families- they received better and more parental care. They do not grow up deprived and impoverished like children from large families do. They have more access to cultural and intellectual activities because there is more discretionary income in small families as opposed to large families where the parents only have income for the rudiments of just food, clothing, and shelter-nothing else!
Children from small families are more likely to obtain tertiary education. The average child from a large families is LUCKY if he/she finished secondary education, forget about tertiary education-that is out of the question. Children from large families are the MOST disadvantated in terms of parental care, socioeconomic living, and education.
Studies show that children from large families END UP the LEAST AFFLUENT socioeconomically of all the family sizes. They are also THE LEAST EDUCATED of all the family sizes. Small families ROCK! Educated and intelligent people are having them because of its inherent benefits! Large families, fortunately, are on their way to EXTINCTION like the dinosaur!
It's not how much kids you have, it's how the parents are. My mother comes from a family of 7. Each grew up to be successful and they all adore their mother and father to bits. I live with a younger sister and 2 younger brothers. Each of us is given the utmost care and parenting a child could need.
This is because it has nothing to do with numbers. A great mother can juggle 10 and still get them off to medical school. Which my friend's mother has done.
on the other hand, I've seen many families with one or two children that are uncared for.
But then again, it's a matter of culture. If my mom isn't around, I can count on 4 aunts to take her place. If my dad isn't around, I can count on 8 uncles to brighten up my day.
In my opinion, it's not a matter of family, but extended family as well.
To truth: It does matter how many children you have. Parents do the most effective job when they have small families. No parent can adequately raise a large family. Parents who have large families usually DO NOT RAISE them, they force their oldest children to raise their younger siblings resulting in the latter forfeiting their childhoods and adolescence.
Children in large families are impoverished, usually not receiving adequate medical and health care. They are also bereft of intellectual and cultural activities unlike children in small families who are affluent and receive good medical and health care. Children in small families are also exposed to more cultural and intellectual activities because there are more monies allotted to children in small families than there is in large families.
Children in large families often have a hardscrabble and precarious existence, living from hand to mouth or at the maximum, a totally subsistent level. Children in large families have neither a sense of self nor individuation because there are just too many of them to give individualized attention to.
Children in large families RAISE themselves and seldom have any type of interaction with their parents unlike children in small families who have constant interaction with their parents. Because children in large families have little or no parental attention, they are more likely to be involved in and/or gravitate towards deleteriousa and delinquent activities. Girls from large families tend to have teenage pregnancies because they received so little attention from their parents that they gravitate towards the first boy/man who shows them any type of attention.
We must face the truth regarding large families. Large families are totally abhorrent and dysfunctional. Large families are totally toxic both to parents and children alike. There is more dysfunction in large families than there is in small families.
I am from a family of four. I am the youngest. All my older sisters resent the fact that my mother began attending college when I was four. I am happy she did. She was a great mother and she died young, so I'm glad she did what she loved while she was alive. She read to me and I read to her, one story each, every night. Money was sometimes tight despite the fact that we were upper middle class. Two of my sisters were in college at one time and money was really tight then. There was child-on- child abuse that was physical, mental, and emotional. It affected all our lives in a detrimental way. My older sisters resent the fact that mom wasn't there enough for them because they were used to a 1950s mom that was room mother every year and was a stay at home mom. I grew up with a liberated, educated mother in the mid-1960s to 1970s. It was of great benefit to me to have an educated, working mother. None of my older sisters have been able to have a successful career outside the home and support themselves. They all have depended on a man to support them and that has not always worked out. Sometimes, the work you do to live with a man is more than the work you would have to do to pay your own bills. My mother and father were/are very intelligent and we were exposed to many books, art supplies, music, opera, ballet, symphony, museums, plays, vacations, etc. We could not afford overseas vacations. However, at least two of my older sisters feel that they were "put upon" and had to help raise their younger siblings. The oldest sister refused to do that at all. The two middle siblings are the most resentful. I had to help clean, cook, and take care of the home. I believe that was good for me and for all us as a learning experience. I would have liked to have three children, but was only able to have one due to health issues. He is very intelligent and we have a great relationship. My oldest sister had no children, my second oldest only one, the third sister had three. My oldest sister said nastily at one point that each of us sisters had how many children we believed there should have been in our family. I notice a great deal of defensiveness that is inappropriate and ridiculous in the above responses. These are facts. You did not cite the studies, but I doubt based on the writing samples above that most of these people would be able to read and interpret scientific studies. They obviously do not understand statistics or sociology. Sociology cannot predict outcomes in a small group. Statistics do not apply well to individual cases. I do know some larger families that work out fairly well, but the mothers in those families stay home. That is not financially possible for most middle class families in the USA today. The number of hours of work needed to maintain middle class status in the USA today is about 100 per week. Therefore, in order to remain in the middle class most mothers must work. Even when the mother stays at home, in larger families mothers tend to be defensive about their choice of family size and tend to underestimate the resentment of their children. The truth can be painful.
Thank you for your insightful comments. Always feel free to stop by. It is good to add to the discussion on the subject! Amen to you, MelindaKLegs, many mothers of large families do seem to be very pathologically defensive regarding their family size and oftentimes deride mothers of smaller families. You are so on target stating that many children from large families actually resent it! Peace to you always!
WOW! I am sad for you. I was one of two and my husband is the oldest of five. We both had the same Socioeconomic situation. His parents actually spent more time with him. Oh yes, I was very cultured and given all the lessons and what not. But, I would have rather spent time with a parent that actually wanted to spend time with me, not send me to other people. My husband is very cultured. Three undergraduate degrees from Rice University and a Masters as well. We both got scholarships. Him because of his amazing brain and I because my well to do parents refused to pay for college for me.
We have four children. All of them would say they KNOW their parents. We take special care in making sure all of them are given special time with each of us everyday. The oldest will be going to Rice in the fall. Top of his class and the next is line is right behind him. We have achievers. They achieve because they are loved and feel loved. They may not get a new car (or any car) when they turn 16, but they know when they have sadness in their life….we are here for them.
I don't know who you polled, but I hear a lot of pain in your writing. I am sorry if you have issue with people of large families. We don't have issue with what you choose is right for you.
Be Blessed!
To J. Humphries: There is no pain in my writing. Studies have authenticated as what intelligent and educated people that children from large families are the least advantaged socioeconomically and in other ways also. Children in large families live from hand to mouth because monies are tight.
In addition to that, they do not receive adequate parental attention because there are too many of them for a parent to give individualized attention to. In many large families, children raise themselves. Better yet, oldest children raise the younger siblings thus forfeiting their own childhood and adolescence. That is egregious and tantamount to child abuse.
Children in large families often have less than adequate food and medical care. They have the poorest nutrition and health in comparison to children from small families who have more nutritious food and medical care. Simply, there is not enough of anything to go around in the large families. This means that children from large families often have to receive outside aid in order to exist at the barely subsistent level.
In large families, there is hardly any monies allotted to the rudiments in life, let alone cultural events. This means that children from large families cannot participate in cultural and intellectual events because there is hardly any money to do so. They are not exposed to the higher and finer things of life- they are just existing at the minimum level.
Regarding education, children in large families seldom if ever attend college and/or forms of tertiary education. They are lucky if they finish high school which is difficult for them because their parents need them to contribute to the family household because monies are tight.
You see, children from large families are the ones who are the most impoverished while children from small families are the ones who are the most affluent. An article from THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS stated that children from large families end up to be in the lower socioeconomic rungs throughout life: first because of their impoverished familial conditions, second, because they are the least likely to attend college, they will be relegated to low paying dead end jobs which will continue the poverty cycle. So children of large families do fare WORSE than children from small families in more ways than one.
gmwilliams, your article is full of gross generalizations, most of which are true only in a given context, and NOT across the board. I am the mother of seven children, all of whom are bright, articulate, and well-adjusted. While yes, we are not wealthy (my husband gave up his lucrative job as the manager of a brokerage office to attend seminary and become a priest), we have everything we need. Our children have more toys than we have rom for, and we regularly donate unused toys to charity. Those who are school-age attend an exclusive college preparatory private school (yes, we are on scholarships and receive financial aid), and they are all expected not only to graduate from a 4 year college, they are expected to earn academic scholarships, as well, according to their ability. And, so far, three of the children have tested into gifted/talented programs, with my middle child (4th) having blown the doors off the test and was above college-level at the age of 9. My oldest (who would have been an only had we stopped there) is, by far, the least academically gifted. My 4 year-old, without any formal schooling (we no longer send them to preschool), was doing 1st grade-level math when we let her tag along to Lower School Math Night.
As far as travel, the oldest three have been on mission trips - two to Tanzania, and one to Honduras. My second daughter even raised money to go back to Tanzania for a second time, all on her own, and is reassign money for a third trip, this summer. We feel is is important for our children to see how most of the people in the rest of the world live, and to be thankful for that which they have been given. It really puts things in perspective, globally, for them. My husband and I have studied at Oxford, twice, ourselves (undergrad AND grad levels), traveled to Malaysia and Thailand, and Scotland. Our children are better acquainted with international cuisine than most of their peers from small families.
And, while they are not given everything their heart desires, they do have iPods and such, bought with money earned and saved. This teaches them to value money, and my children do not suffer from the appalling sense of entitlement that affects most of their peers from smaller, more affluent families. By watching their parents deal with budgets daily, they have learned how to prioritize, and they understand that you are not automatically handed everything you want. It requires work, and, sometimes, sacrifice. You know, like how the real world works.
And, as far as not giving each child enough attention, well, sure, that happens. It happens n small families, too. However, my husband and I attend every single one of our children's extracurricular events (sports, music, etc), and we are the ONLY parents who do so, on a regular basis. So, why are the parents of one or two children neglecting their kids this way? You say it doesn't happen, but these parents are too busy with their lives to take the time to be present for their kids' endeavors. W manage to do it with ours, and they have 5 fewer kids than we do. What's up with THAT???
The school where our children attend has stated, repeatedly, that they wish they had more students like our children. They are polite, well-behaved, attentive, and respectful. They care for other children, and they look out for one another. The teachers always comment on what a joy it is to have my sons and daughters in their classrooms.
And, you are simply going to dismiss me, as you have with all the other large families who have posted here, as merely an "exception." However, it seems that you are simply drawing (unproven and unsubstantiated) conclusions, based slowly on your own personal experiences. In my family, we teach our children to think critically, to review all he evidence, and to draw conclusions based on facts. You were obviously not taught those skills in your singleton house. Instead, you seem to have been taught to draw biased conclusions based on what you want to see, and proof-text, deciding on your thesis and finding "evidence" that fits. That is really backwards, and not at all scientific. You are making judgements based on your own prejudices, NOT on facts. Which is perfectly fine, until you assert that your prejudices ARE facts, which they are not.
Are things in our family perfect? No. But I am also not naive enough to believe that things in your small family were, either.Do my kids sometimes feel that they aren't getting enough attention? Yes. Do their peers from smaller families also feel this? Yes. DO they get everything they want, No. Do they get everything they need? Yes.
And, as for family size, there IS no right answer. What is right for you isn't necessarily right for me. And, obviously, my large family isn't right for you. But that's okay. Because, my seven kids are all going to grow into loving, caring, well-adjusted members of society, who have sent he world, can think critically, and can appreciate the finer things. And, most importantly, they will grow up having learned that each and every person has value, and that you cannot judge a person (or a family) until you know them, because everyone has a story.
Sorry for the typos. That's what I get for typing with a toddler jumping on my lap and multitasking by doing internet research for my husband while composing a response - proofreading went out the window... ;)
To mom of many: It seems to me that the oldest of your children have suffered somewhat benign neglect. You stated that your oldest child is the LEAST academically gifted. Well, your oldest would have been smarter if YOU have spent more time with him/her. It seems to me that you have ignored your oldest child in favor of your younger children. Well, lady, you have proven my point exactly.
In large families, the older children are usually ignored and bypassed in favor of the younger children in the family who receive more parental attention. You also stated in your comment that your husband quit his lucrative job to become a priest. A priest? He has seven children, what he is thinking- this is selfishness to the milnillionth degree. He is thinking about his own needs first. He has a family and should have stayed in the lucrative job to support his seven children. The average father with children put the CHILDREN's economic well-being before his so-called happiness.
Then you stated that your children go to school based upon financial aid. Financial aid? This seems like welfare to me. When I attend school, my parents paid for it 100% percent. My father and mother had professional jobs and worked overtime to give me a wonderful life which I thoroughly appreciate. My father would NEVER think of quitting a lucrative job to pursue another job that he loved. That is totally ludicrous to say the least.
You say that you and your husband are highly educated. Well, this is good however your husband is thoroughly lacking in maturity and commonsense. No thinking person, especially with a large number of children, would leave a lucrative career to pursue a job which is not as lucrative! What is your husband thinking. Oh, excuse me, he is not thinking!
In my singleton household, I was taught the importance of education, logic, and studying and having a career which makes more than an adequate living. I know if I had children, I would have 1-2 children so they can be adequately taught and have individualized attention. I will never give up a lucrative career if I have children because their needs, not mine cames first.
You and your husband have demonstrated the selfishness which is very typical of parents of large families. They just reproduce for its own sake without considering how their children are affected by their prolific reproduction.
My parents also taught me never to have more children than I can adequately provide for physically, financially, and psychologically. Obviously, you did not do that- you stated that your finances are somewhat tight! Don't you dare criticize me because I was far more socioeconomically advantaged than you are.
Do not knock the parents of affluent, small families. It is apparent that because you are struggling financially, you are jealous because they do not have to and can afford to give their children opportunities that you are ill able to afford.
You state that you are educated. Maybe but educated and intelligent people plan their families. They just do not do things helter skelter and expect financial aid for their children's education because they cannot foot the bill. I can see uneducated people having large families because they were never taught about the benefits of having a small family but when so-called educated people do so- I call it reprehensible and irresponsible to say the least. Good day, mam!
gmwilliams,
My first daughter's struggles began with a kindergarten teacher who couldn't teach. I pulled her out of school to homeschool and give her the one-on-one attention that she needed, and her reading and self-confidence improved dramatically. So, I will have to disagree that I neglected her. You are trying HARD to prove your point, but you can't. The evidence screams out, contradicting your views. You simply come across as petulant and whiny, and oh-so-very judgmental.
And, my husband asks himself on a regular basis why he left his lucrative job. LOL Why? Because he had a call to ministry (something you probably don't understand, and will undoubtedly ridicule). He would much rather still work his 8-5 job managing other people's money, but this is the path he was called to take. But I doubt, from your tone, you are religious, so I won't expect you to understand that. He has been nationally recognized for his work (he is a leader in the fight against Human Trafficking, and is contributing to much more than our own financial security in his current vocation. He is freeing people from slavery (yes, there are slaves in our country, and even in your hometown), and that, in and of itself, is a wonderful example for our children. Money is not the only thing that matters. Serving your fellow humankind is pretty darned important, too.
As for the scholarships, it's not welfare. No gov't $$ involved. The school has an endowment specifically earmarked for clergy kids, and that is where the money comes from. One of our children also received an academic scholarship and the use of an iPad for her outstanding academic achievement at the school. We do not receive any sort of gov't aid at all. We have health and dental insurance, and our kids are remarkably healthy and well-cared for.
And we fully provide for our family. We have vacations to the beach, amusement parks, and the like. They do not go without. Just because our finances are tight does not mean we are financially (or otherwise) irresponsible. There you go again, jumping to conclusions.
And our family was very much planned, thankyouverymuch. Not that it is any of your business. Which it is not.
And, once again, you have not explained why those affluent parents with smaller families neglect their children by not attending their athletic/music/extracurricular events, and why those same kids tell my husband and me how they wish their parents would take the time to come watch them play and perform, and ask why we seem to care so much? They tell our kids they are lucky to have parents who are involved in their lives. So, now, exactly WHO is being neglectful, in this case?
I am sorry the you are so close-minded as to not allow for a free and open exchange of ideas, and you resort to belittling and name-calling anyone who has evidence to disprove your theory.
And, a well-educated person would know it's spelled "Ma'am", a shortened form of "madam." I think your own education comes up short in a few places.
To mom of many: I am really quite unconcerned about whether a person is answering his/her "calling". Logic dictates that if one has children and is intelligent, he/she does not leave a lucrative, well-paying job to follow his/her so-called "calling". The socioeconomic needs of your children come first and foremost, not your so-called calling. This idea is totally preposterous to say the least. This is irresponsibility and immaturity to the milnillionth degree. I just mentioned this to a social worker neighbor of mine and he just looked totally nonplussed, saying that anyone who leaves a lucrative job and have children to follow some inane calling can be classified as insane and having some issues. Good day again!
gmwilliams,
I'm sure the Lord God Almighty will appreciate your calling His work inane. :)
And, once again, you have not explained why those affluent parents with smaller families neglect their children by not attending their athletic/music/extracurricular events, and why those same kids tell my husband and me how they wish their parents would take the time to come watch them play and perform, and ask why we seem to care so much? They tell our kids they are lucky to have parents who are involved in their lives. So, now, exactly WHO is being neglectful, in this case?
And, please, don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
Mom of Many et al:
I am not sure why you all are so upset at gmwilliams’ opinions on a blog page. My guess is that few will read it, and most will realize for themselves that he is dealing with some issues/subscriptions/demons of his early childhood. While a few individuals like himself will base their understanding on 40 year old studies, most human beings in this country, particularly those with a greater appreciation for the social sciences, will pay far closer attention to more recent studies which have determined that family size is only one of the factors which affect children, their ability to function in society as adults, and their general feelings of happiness.
Gmwilliams is correct when he cites Zajonc as evidence that IQ’s decline in birth order. Were he more read or a better student of the studies in this area and especially Zajonc’s follow-up in 2001, he might realize that the Zajonc study was redone to determine the quantitative effect of birth order on intelligence. While birth order did produce a difference in IQ’s, a remarkable discovery was made: IQ’s of families are actually increasing more significantly than the difference (in layman’s terms, each successive child’s IQ is about a point below the prior child, so an 8th child’s IQ will be 8 points lower than a firstborn; yet the starting point in each firstborn is going up regardless of successive family sizes). While I cannot say for certain that Zajonc’s revisit in 2001 to the subject was prompted by that strange discovery (were Zajonc’s initial theory correct, the third born child’s IQ of a third born child of a third born child would 9 points lower than the beginning subject instead of being 5-25 points higher), his revisit only confirmed what Sulloway, Rodgers, Sewell, and a host of others discovered during the 90’s and early 2000’s.
Is IQ that important? The answer to that question depends upon how one wants to define importance. In questions of fame, firstborns (who generally have higher IQs than their siblings) account for almost half of all those significantly honored (people like Nobel Prize Winners, acclaimed researchers or doctors, etc). Those same studies, curiously enough, demonstrated that revolutionary leaders, inventors, and other such valued individuals were far more likely to have been accomplished by non-first born. Sulloway and Simonton in their analysis of the data posit that subsequent children have more creative imaginations and, therefore, are more capable of using the tools provided them in ways never before discovered. So, perhaps small families are producing Nobel Prize winners and large families are producing inventors and revolutionary leaders of the future. It seems both small families and large families have something to offer to the world.
With respect to education, opportunities, and parental involvement, the blog poster is obviously a disciple along the lines of Schlacter (whose understandings produced Blake and Downey) and others whose a priori understandings of the family system were linear. Simply put, the assumptions of those in this line of thought believe that parent’s have only a finite amount of money, time, energy, love and etc. with which to parent; children subsequent to the first force parents to allocate resources (2 kids would each get 50%; 3 would each get 33%; etc), thereby reducing the potential success for each child. The responses on this blog, however, pretty much resemble countless other studies. There are children from small families who are happy and successful, and there are children from large families who are happy and successful. Similarly, there are children from small families who are failures and miserable, and there are children from large families who are failures and miserable. And, my guess is, there are a whole bunch in the middle of those extreme positions who manage to get along fine without needing social science types trying to determine what is “best” or “worst” for them. Talk to those who have done the studies and each is careful to note that there are some non-quantifiable affects on the whole process (for example, a mother’s involvement and methodology seems to be more important than family size or even the father’s involvement with respect to children’s manners; how is a family’s faith and its impact on their life together and individually accurately measured?). Maybe that’s why so many new studies are advising us to have either very small (one) or very large (more than 4) families--lol.
My two cents worth (which is as about as valuable as this blogger’s): one size does not fit all. If your children, however many you have, are happy, well-adjusted, think critically, and are on their way to pursuing productive lives for themselves, don’t stress at all about what was posted here. If, on the other hand, your child or children is/are unhappy, miserable, involved with things upon which society frowns, you might want to consider changing the way that you parent or seek outside help.
To bemused: Thank you for stopping by and adding to the discussion. God bless you always.
When we listen to the news we hear statistics, statistics, statistics. And sometimes we forget that we are individuals. And also we tend to forget that there are other variables outside the study that might not have been taken into account. I believe that this study likely has some truth in i--that children from large families might tend to have fewer resources and access to education. However, the blanket statements like "children from small families achieved GREATER SOCIOECONOMIC AFFLUENCE" are troublesome because they don't provide any specifics. What are the percentages? Why not be more specific? What other variables besides family size might have been ignored or marginalized?
This reminds me a little bit of a few years ago when they said in the news that people in Japan eat more fish and they live longer, and "therefore" eating fish makes you live longer. There were a million other variables that were ignored in that "study." Statistics can be very helpful UP TO A POINT, and when they are relied on when other variables are marginalized is when the problem arises. Another thing that sometimes happens is people will hear that something increases their chance of getting some disease by say 20%, and then it's generalized and treated as if it's a sure thing, but the original study only said 20%.
On the voting buttons above, the questions themselves are biased. How come there's one button for "abysmal-my family was very large" but there's no counterpart like "abysmal-my family was small"??? The choices are like leading questions--there are assumptions within the choices. The way the 4 choices are written imply that a large family is worse than a small family.
I really like your hub and read your articles quite a bit because they usually enlighten me and are thought provoking and quite honestly your articles have helped me understand a lot of things better. However, I was a little bit shocked by the jumping to conclusions and by the biased way the poll was written. But I'm no expert. YOu might want to ask one of your colleagues to read this particular article and give their professional feedback.
Most writers, at least those who are wanting to be taken seriously, use sources that follow a balanced and logical bias to argue their point. This article is so biased and inflamatory, it should not be taken seriously. There are multitudes of contributors to society who have come from large families. This article reads like an apologetic for Facist Eastern Europe and Asian Family Policies. Why not have the state rear all children and convert the family unit to workforce production? Where does control of the family unit end with your philosophy?
While I appreciate your commitment to your opinion, I do think the generalizations you make are weakening your stance. As so many have commented, most of us will just take what you say with a grain of salt and not worry too much about it, but I can't help but feel compelled to provide you with my real-world example. There are so many exceptions to the rule that you put forth - we are a large family with the typical amount of large family chaos. My elementary-aged children are the top achievers at their school - my oldest just received the Gifted Student of the Year award for our county, my son just placed 1st in a county-wide math tournament, and my youngest elementary student skipped a grade because she was reading at a 4th grade level in the 1st grade. I think so much has to do with parenting styles, community, and so many other factors - be careful when generalizing (unless your goal is to stir the pot!).
AWESOME WORK MOMMA OF FOUR HAPPY KIDS =) ... IN RESPONSE TO THIS ARTICLE I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THIS COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG ... THERE IS A HUGE LACK OF PERSPECTIVE =/
Mom Kat 21 months ago
I disagree, as a mother of 8 children I can tell you that all of my children get as much (if not more) proper love and positive attention than children from smaller families. I have highly intelligent kids who are capable of skipping up a grade if they so choose. The number of children isn't the deciding factor - it is the skills and capabilities of the parents. Bad parents of 2 kids can screw up those 2 kids just as badly as a bad parent of more.