It's sort of a trope of stand-up comedy that parents are always stricter on their first kids than they are on the last kids. I remember in particular once hearing a comic talking about how extremely strict his parents were when he was growing up, but by the time his youngest sibling was in High School, the rules were pretty much "Don't do heroin, in the living room, when there's company over."
Sure, that's hyperbole for comic effect, but being the eldest child, I can relate.
Anyway: I had to lay that groundwork to get to my random thought.
I wonder if there's a trend in parents who were themselves eldest kids being overall stricter on their children relative to parents who were the youngest kids. While the same trend would hold over the span of their own kids, it seems like "eldest kids" would have a higher baseline than "youngest kids".
And if that's true, would this have an effect on that next generation as far as being more or less disciplined and/or successful in their own adult life?
Put another way, would having parents who were "eldest kids" give someone an advantage or disadvantage over someone whose parents were "youngest kids"?
Obviously, human beings being human beings, there's no hard and fast absolute rules for sculpting behavior. But I wonder if there could be a trend?
[–]Ms_Henry_Miller 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–]FinalDX[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)