The Insignificance of Birth Order

My opinion about one of Forer’s essay from her book about birth order and life adjustment is generally negative. I doubt that the essay is backed up with trustworthy data based on intensive research. The information there is presented in very broad and subjective expressions that bear little or no empirical value. Honestly, I feel that the essay does not give me any fresh insight nor useful information, the very same feeling as reading the horoscope section on monthly magazine.

“Older or oldest brother or sister tends to develop a self concept that includes the belief that he could do many things better than his siblings and that he is more adequate than other people in many situations.”

“The youngest tends to think that he is less able to do many things than other people but need not to be concerned because there are always others around to take care of him.”

I consider that Forer’s theory of birth order is about fifty percent accurate, the same as pseudo-science products. Traits that are brought to the discussion, such as being capable or relaxed are very universal to the point that everybody could see himself possessing the said qualities. This phenomenon, which is known as “Confirmation Bias”, are the reason why so many people still believe in pseudo-science products, such as tarot cards interpretation of personality, palm reading, and astrology. It occurs when someone is presented with general ideas as the description of himself, then he agrees with some and lightheartedly overlook or even stretches the false notions so that the whole description seems to be true. 

 The reasoning of self concepts is also a bit shabby, more like a myth to be frank because it challenges logic and general statistic. I discard the belief that a great number of human, for instance, the first-borne, which accounts for about thirty percent of the entire population, have similar qualities and fate. From my personal experience, I have never seen a large number of people with the same birth order possess the same personality, reason of life, and dream. They are all unique. Oddly, I believe that Forer took her data from media such as folklore, classics, and popular movies because those are the places where one could see Forer’s theory commonly applies in general population of the characters. I cannot decide whether the author discussion applies to the typical United States families or anywhere else in our reality because the discussion is mostly formed from myths and therefore irrelevant.

From neuroscience perspective, at first wealth and genes have more influence than the birth order, then gradually shifting to culture and environment as the child grows. In the golden period of brain growth, genes and nutrition which is determined by wealth, have enormous influence. After that, it is more to the family atmosphere that decide the plasticity of the brain and the behavior of the child. Furthermore, interactions between the child and the family have far more factors, mostly more significant than the mere birth order of the babies and the number of the baby’s siblings. For example, a trauma or a phobia could ruin someone personality severely regardless of his birth order, especially when it happens before the child's brain is fully developed. The personality of the parent too is a great factor because parents are adults who are the closest to the child in that golden period. As a conclusion, I conclude that birth order has a very small impact on the growth of the personality and the life adjustment of a person.

picture taken from: www.teamplayergaming.com

A Humble Introduction of A Recluse

"Hello, I am Ricardo. What is your name? And the meaning?"
"..." (insert your name here)
"But I will definitely forget it in an hour or half, so introduce yourself to me again when the time comes, please?"

These are the combos of what I always say when meeting someone new. Not a very good first impression, eh? A geeky nerdy dork or an absent-minded self-absorbed professor? Irritating for some and annoying for the others? I swear everyone that I've came personally to discuss about this weakness said that I just need some more time to socialize and be the butterfly or that everyone else is just like me, so "no worry be happy". Bullshit.

Luckily, about 2 weeks ago, I've got across something that could explain it all. I am just a  visually oriented person, in the simplest term: I can remember your faces but not your names. In addition, I am very very visually oriented, to a degree that my brain is addicted to visual stimulus such as a vivid imagination and a well-made picture (I could stare at a drawing for hours, enjoying every pixels of it!). But that's not all.

For some unbeknownst reasons, at early age my brain linked every other senses to the visual cortex, making me a synesthetic product of nature. I could literally see the colour of Beethoven's Symphonies, the colour of a touch on my knee, the colour of the sourness of a glass of orange juice, in short: the colours of most sensations. Confused? Me too! It just quite hard to say it all in one go. It's like explaining a colour of a cat to a born-blind person, that other than the meowing voice and the softness of the fur, actually the cat have "colours and a 3D-shape".

Personally, I'm grateful to be living in this condition. I could enjoy and memorize most of everything better than other people do (other than names of course haha!). In fact, I could rarely get bored because I could always find something good in any condition. There are drawbacks of course, but I consider them minor, such as my solitary, frantic, and head-in-the-cloud attitude, which are the fruits of my silent reveries when sitting alone in a bench and absorbing the colours of nature.