A thesis of a post (Mum's rubbing off on me).
May I share with you my latest theory (first concocted over our breakfast conversation at Gloria Jeans).Usual Disclaimer
Merely observation of a general trend + a feasible explanation of this phenomenon. Not fact, not absolute, not stereotype. So stop chasing me with your PC protests after this post.
A little exercise to start off
Think of three of the most insecure people you know.
Now tell me, what birth order are they? (Oldest, middle, youngest, only)
Theory
"Having a younger sibling makes you more insecure".
I've come to realise generally, the most insecure people I know are all oldest siblings. This is followed by middles, then youngest and only's. Which I thought was really strange, because I've always thought that the most annoying people were only children, and thus they probably were the most insecure too (haha sorry if you're an only - of course I don't mean you =P). Or it should be the babies, or the middles. But not us, the oldest ones (haha yeah I am one, sigh). We're supposed to be the independent and confident and bold ones! Or not...
So (whilst punching in 75 words/min at work) I thought of all the people I knew, and then quickly determined their a) birth order and b) state of security (as perceived by me). And I thought, heck this is pretty true! So then I thought, hmmm, why?
Hypothesis
So this could be one way to explain it. Oldests are ex-only children. So they start out just like only kids - adored, lavished with attention and positive reinforcement. Then arrives the little one, snatching away all the attention (everyone always plays with the baby first when they approach a family - observation from church and something I'm guilty of too).
The oldest child thinks, what happened? Where's all the attention gone? Insecurity develops. They try to earn it back by being loud, in-your-face etc. (I can think of soooo many oldest sibs who are like that at creche at church).
Middles also have that problem because they are ex-youngest. But the problem is not as bad because they were never only children -- they have always had to share their attention with someone else, they were never the "centre of the universe".
Youngest and only children are more secure, I hypothesise, because their role in the family has never changed with the arrival of a younger sibling. The displacement of birth order could be a source of insecurity, as children are now unsure of where they belong.
Confounders (wow this is like a proper paper hehe)
1) Measurement bias: Perception of insecurity
Of course I didn't do extensive surveys with p values and what-not to determine insecurity levels vs. birth order. I just sat there and thought of all the oldest sibs I know, c.f. all the youngests that I know, etc etc. The problem with this type of "data collection" (if you can even call it that) is that some people's insecurity is manifested more obviously than others. I mean, it could well be that youngest sibs are just as insecure but they hide it better. So therefore, the theory could well be that "oldest sibs have maladaptive mechanisms in coping with insecurity" rather than just having more insecurity per se.
A few types of behaviour I saw as testament to one's level of insecurity:
i) Attention seeking behaviour -- okay everyone likes some attention but I think that when you're constantly seeking approval from other people, it's a sign of something more
ii) Low self-esteem, which either manifests as showing off and telling people how wonderful you are, or always putting yourself down (Eeyore syndrome)
iii) Inability to take criticism
iv) Inability to spend time on your own ("nigelphobia")
2) Sample bias: People I know
The other thing is that this is only the people that I know, and I have to say that oldests and youngests are over-represented in my "data sample". Also note that the majority of the subjects are female (hey I did go to an all-girl school), but we won't get into the argument about whether males or females are the more insecure ones today.
Conclusion
So my point is that I think there is a definite trend there, based on people I know, between displaced birth order (oldests and middles) and insecurity issues. Of course, a kaleidoscope of other things determine a person's psyche, and childhood psychology does not replace human freedom or excuse responsibility (e.g. "My mum didn't love me when I was little so now I'm a killer" doesn't stand up with me). But yeah, this is just what I've observed.
Feel free to disagree, just don't get angry at me (esp if you're the oldest). And hey, I am one too! =P
Wow, my first psych paper... and I haven't even started my psych term...
posted by me. @ 11:12 AM
1 Comments:
was i one of the considered in your "sample"?
i see sense to your "paper" ;) it perturbs me though, that i am insecure because i am the older sibling. i like to think of myself as the more independent, confident and reliable sibling - not insecure.
at the same time, i would tend to think (or hope) that this particular sort of insecurity diminishes with age. that the older you get, the less these things matter, the more maturer you get, the less your insecurities will fester.
am i just being optimistic?
Post a Comment
<< Home