Nancy Melucci alluded to this in her earlier reply, but Judith Rich
Harris does an excellent job of arguing against Sulloway's birth
order research in Appendix 1 of The Nurture Assumption. The main
point of the appendix is that she and others have tried to replicate
Sulloway's findings using the same data set and have been unable to
do so. It's a very interesting read (and not too long).
-- Mark Casteel
Here is a reproduction of a table from the appendix based on 169
studies cited by the review by Ernest and Angst (1983), whose
research Sulloway supposedly performed a meta-analyis on
At 08:45 PM 9/15/2008, Dr. Bob Wildblood wrote:
> Tim Shearon wrote:
> I also plead ignorance of the literature beyond what
> I've skimmed in intro texts. But me? The oldest? My
> sister who is 8 years my senior would get a kick out
> of that prediction. (She'd probably agree though).
>
> Tim
>
Alfred Adler did a lot of work in this area and I had the privilege
to attend a two day presentation he made -- many years ago. In
regard to Tim's specific situation, Adler would say that Tim was an
only child, and therefore the firstborn, because there were more
than 7 years older that him. If you are interested and want to know
more about Adler's ideas, go to http://tinyurl.com/8l9ww.
Bob Wildblood, PhD, HSPP
Lecturer in Psychology
Indiana University Kokomo
Kokomo, IN 46904-9003
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
*********************************
Mark A. Casteel, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Penn State York
1031 Edgecomb Ave.
York, PA 17403
(717) 771-4028
*********************************
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
