Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

First Born DNA ???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • First Born DNA ???

    I have noticed something and I wondered if there is any factual basis to this or is it just pure conincidense? Are the first born of each family more likely to be more book smart, but have less common sense? More likely to be more eccentric or drug or alchohol dependant?

  • #2
    No.

    There is nothing encoded in the DNA that presupposes anything in the first part your question. However, you could make a case for psychological gardening by the parents but this would only be the case if there were siblings. The attention that first born babies receive from their parents is far more focused than when the secondary children are born. This leaves the option for parents to preen, foster and garden the stress points of a child's behavioral makeup.

    With regard to drug/alcohol dependency science is on the fence as to whether or not those traits can be inherited. It is not a characteristic isolated only to the first born either. Eccentricity is a personality trait which may be genetic like someone being very social. However, there is no scientific evidence that it is isolated to first born children. It can manifest itself in many ways as well. For example, an only child may be inclined to eccentricity if his surroundings are of an anti- social nature, such as both parents work, or only one parent is in the household. Or if trauma exists, such as being a foster child, or being abused. These all seemingly would fall under a psychosis of sorts but predisposition could be assumed under genetics.
    Last edited by Zaru; 27 June 2010, 08:56 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      First, Zaru pointed out what has been true for thousands of years: the eldest son gets the most fatherly attention, because he was originally the only son--on him was pinned all the father's hopes and dreams. Perhaps to a lesser extent, the eldest daughter may receive similar exaggerated attention from her mother. Of course, if the doting parent is psychologically unbalanced, the child is likely to be so too.

      Second, many studies of birth order make the fatal mistake of comparing apples and oranges. An only child is technically also the firstborn, but any study that lumps them together will of course see firstborn children as the brightest, most successful, happiest, etc., but at least partly because only children have those attributes. Clearly, the only child gets everything he needs whenever he needs it, from parental attention to special training and equipment, luxuries not afforded to the many children in a large family.

      Third, some studies claim a specific deleterious biological effect on younger sons--not genetic, but in the womb. The claim is that the mother's body sees a fetal boy's hormones as somewhat "foreign" to her, and--over multiple such pregnancies--the mother's body eventually develops some degree of resistance to such hormones. Perhaps the most obvious effect throughout thousands of years of history is that younger sons are less likely to show leadership ability or desire (which in most societies is equated with masculinity), even if given the chance (which historically they have not been given anyway).

      The one famous counterexample, of the Israelite King David, required direct and continuous Divine intervention; and even then, David's greatest virtue in the Bible is said to be his obedience to God (i.e., followership), not his leadership of men.
      Last edited by lgmayka; 29 June 2010, 10:58 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        The book "The Birth Order Book" by Kevin Leman has a lot of good information about birth order in it. It is written from a psychology standpoint - not a DNA perspective.

        Comment


        • #5
          Those stereotypes of firstborn and only child are wrong. My case is the total opposite. I am an only child. My parents didn't want me. Both of my parents are firstborn. I have a younger half brother (but I doubt he is my father's biological son. My stepmothers son) that my father dotes on - gave him a vintage sportscar at 16 and private school and fed, clothed and sheltered and protected and cared for, while I grew up fatherless, on welfare, very poor, hungry, homeless, and missing school in winter because I didn't have a coat. I am my father's only proven biological child. My father was raised by his stepfather because his biological father died when he was two years old. My mother certainly wasn't spoiled by her parents. Her mother was hostile towards her. Her mother cancelled my moms health insurance and took out a life insurance policy on her when my mom was near death with double pneumonia. Both of my grandmothers abandoned me. I disagree with the only child and firstborn stereotypes.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rainbow View Post
            Those stereotypes of firstborn and only child are wrong. My case is the total opposite. I am an only child. My parents didn't want me. Both of my parents are firstborn. I have a younger half brother (but I doubt he is my father's biological son. My stepmothers son) that my father dotes on - gave him a vintage sportscar at 16 and private school and fed, clothed and sheltered and protected and cared for, while I grew up fatherless, on welfare, very poor, hungry, homeless, and missing school in winter because I didn't have a coat. I am my father's only proven biological child. My father was raised by his stepfather because his biological father died when he was two years old. My mother certainly wasn't spoiled by her parents. Her mother was hostile towards her. Her mother cancelled my moms health insurance and took out a life insurance policy on her when my mom was near death with double pneumonia. Both of my grandmothers abandoned me. I disagree with the only child and firstborn stereotypes.
            There are anomalies in every instance but overall the psychosis seems to fit the patterns meted out. My mother was raised in very similar conditions as yours, but it was her inner strength to survive that shaped her. Something such as survival instinct could be construed as both genetic as well as psychological and not limited to ordinal.

            To reject it empirically as wrong is a misstep, but that does not make your assertions based upon your most unfortunate circumstances any less meaningful.

            Comment


            • #7
              How a child is treated by their parents depends on the parents. I have seen that parents pick a favorite. It could be for whatever reason or no good reason. The fifth child of eight could be the favorite, or the yougest, or the oldest, or a stepchild. I have seen all variations in my lifetime. I resent being stereotyped because of being an only child, and that has happened to me plenty of times, and at work. I had managers who were the youngest, and they asked various workers what their birth orders were. They deliberately picked out workers who were also the youngest, for advancement and promotion. Prejuidice and bias comes in many forms: race, ethnicity, religion, birth order, sex, height, eye color, sun sign, whether you love basketball (and the same specific team), etc.

              Comment


              • #8
                Prejuidice and bias comes in many forms: race, ethnicity, religion, birth order, sex, height, eye color, sun sign, whether you love basketball (and the same specific team), etc. End Quote:

                Now you are getting the picture.
                You forgot one point.
                Taxes:
                The middle class pays ninety percent of the taxes.
                I’m being discriminated against.
                Now can we go back to DNA?

                Comment


                • #9
                  My buddy believes that everything about how we act and behave is directly related to our dna. He thinks that certain people with certain ancestry are going to behave and act a certain way and have a certain personality and there is very, very little they can do about it. I disagree with him. I think that we choose how to live our lives and what kind of person we become. He says except in rare circumstances, I am wrong. He says I will allways have a natural tendency to be selfish and to try to want "whats mine and whats next to mine". He says I will allways struggle with that and have to fight that feeling off. He says it works like this. I am descended all the way back in time from people taking over other people and killing them and taking what they have. Vikings, Raping and stealing, Anglo-saxons, the battle of hastings, Colonial america, Native american Indian slaughter, Trail of tears, White Southerners, slavery, on and on and on. What do you guys think?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Either that is trolling or you and your buddy are just stupid, imho. The Battle of Hastings and slavery, etc, had nothing to do with birth-order-ism. That is more along the line of YDNA-ism, or what men do (male power issues), but there are some exceptions to that (male musicians, artists, scribes, philosophers, tradesmen, etc). How much of your stuff, time, and life have you given to your buddy to "prove" that you aren't "selfish". Think for yourself and keep your stuff. Your thread started claiming that there is "first born dna", which is nonsense, imho.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rainbow View Post
                      Either that is trolling or you and your buddy are just stupid, imho. The Battle of Hastings and slavery, etc, had nothing to do with birth-order-ism. That is more along the line of YDNA-ism, or what men do (male power issues), but there are some exceptions to that (male musicians, artists, scribes, philosophers, tradesmen, etc). How much of your stuff, time, and life have you given to your buddy to "prove" that you aren't "selfish". Think for yourself and keep your stuff. Your thread started claiming that there is "first born dna", which is nonsense, imho.


                      I'm not stupid and neither is my friend. Just because somone doesn't have the same opinion as you doesn't make them stupid. My friend and I differ on our opinion of dna and how it affects people. Doesn't mean he is stupid and doesn't mean I am stupid. And I'm also not "trolling". "trolling" is what you do when your main boat motor breaks and you have to use your little spare "trolling" motor. I'm discussing DNA. Whay YOU are doing however is being rude.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Most people living today are ultimately descended, in the male line at least, from conquerors. They tend to enjoy a lot more reproductive success.

                        Timothy Peterman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
                          Most people living today are ultimately descended, in the male line at least, from conquerors. They tend to enjoy a lot more reproductive success.

                          Timothy Peterman

                          makes sense

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by smith1 View Post
                            My buddy believes that everything about how we act and behave is directly related to our dna. He thinks that certain people with certain ancestry are going to behave and act a certain way and have a certain personality and there is very, very little they can do about it. I disagree with him. I think that we choose how to live our lives and what kind of person we become. He says except in rare circumstances, I am wrong. He says I will allways have a natural tendency to be selfish and to try to want "whats mine and whats next to mine". He says I will allways struggle with that and have to fight that feeling off. He says it works like this. I am descended all the way back in time from people taking over other people and killing them and taking what they have. Vikings, Raping and stealing, Anglo-saxons, the battle of hastings, Colonial america, Native american Indian slaughter, Trail of tears, White Southerners, slavery, on and on and on. What do you guys think?
                            Frankly, I think it's a little silly but you and your friend are entitled to your opinions. Does your friend out the other side of his mouth then declare there is no racism or sexism and minorities and women are just whining?
                            Last edited by CWF; 3 July 2010, 03:00 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
                              Most people living today are ultimately descended, in the male line at least, from conquerors. They tend to enjoy a lot more reproductive success.
                              There's a lot of truth to this with respect to the patrilineal line; but the "conquest" may have been as much as 5000 years ago.

                              Eastern and Western Slavs are about 50% R1a1, but that haplogroup breaks down into clusters of varying age. For example, one cluster may have expanded (i.e., conquered) 1100 years ago to form the first Polish state. A slightly older cluster may have expanded 1500 years ago to greatly enlarge the territory in which Slavic was spoken. A still older cluster may be associated with expansion (conquest) by the Sarmatians; another cluster, the Scythians; an even older cluster, the Balto-Slavs; and the oldest cluster, the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

                              So those who descend from the Proto-Indo-European expansion of 5000 years ago may not feel like victorious conquerors today--they haven't been "on top" for 5000 years.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X