[.ca] Born To Rebel (ISBN 0349111006)

From Amazon.com:
This groundbreaking book takes on the influence of birth order in personalities and offers some surprising conclusions. Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has undertaken the first comprehensive study of birth order in determining personality and social outlook. He produces overwhelming evidence that, because of the evolutionary hierarchy in families, first-born children are more likely to be conformists while the later-borns tend to be more creative and more likely to reject the status quo. He documents just how different siblings are from each another--a person tends to have more in common with any randomly chosen person of their own age than with a sibling--and explains why sibling differences occur. The book offers new insights into the determining factors of who we are and who our children will be, and it is unlike any research yet published.

quite an accomplisment:
Wow. This really is THE book on birth order. This book is massivly researched and all the conclusions are fulled backed up. Take a look at the editorial reviews for yourself. It is widely acclaimed. If you have ever wondered why siblings raised in such similar ways turn out so different, than this is the book. You will find it especially enjoyable if you like scientific history and evolutionary psychology. This isn't necessarily easy reading. It is a book of research by an MIT scholar, not a silly book of theories by a bloated psychologist.

Worth it!:
Did you ever have the feeling that you read a different book altogether? I found Prof. Sulloway's work to be highly revealing. He obviously managed to bring this topic from coffee table discussion to true scientific value. I am a bit confused as to the criticism of other readers however. If one were not to use multi-variate statistics, pray tell how would one go about proving or disproving any social theory? The historical examples, as I understand them, are a means for the reader to understand the significance of the data, which was obviously well documented. Clearly human behavior cannot be determined 100% from research, but it does point to significant tendencies. I found the book highly informative and well worth the effort.

Sibling strivings:
The role of siblings within the family and beyond has received attention for many years. Sulloway pulls together a mass of research, including his own to find patterns deriving from family structure. Using a strong evolutionary stance, he shows how "sibling rivalry" for resources extends into later life. This sweeping study keeps the reader's attention with clear, straightforward prose and a refreshingly direct approach. It will keep other students of human behaviour working for many years. The general pattern, examined within larger social, political, religious and scientific arenas, shows how later-borns become the flexible, innovative thinkers. While, necessarily, only a few become actual creators of new ideas, they more readily accept fresh concepts. Later-borns learn to adapt in the family environment - it's a survival trait. First-borns, and Sulloway notes the difference between chronological and "functional" first-borns, cling to a conservative stance. Even if the parents are radical thinkers, their first-borns will adhere to their way of thinking. Later-borns in such a circumstance are more likely to depart from the family's stance, adhering to more conservative social or political ideas. The disparity in attitudes is the norm within the family, not necessarily across family boundaries. Throughout the book, Sulloway frequently turns to Darwin as a case study in strengthening his thesis. It's a wise choice, since Darwin is emblematic of what Sulloway asserts. middle-class, middle sibling, middle-aged at the peak of his achievements, Darwin exemplifies most of Sulloway's criteria for distinguishing birth order as a personality driver. Sulloway concedes that the focus on Darwin is a logical result of the naturalist's showing the world how evolution works. The traits he describes have biological roots, intensified by the human condition. Human families have a long time to build the patterns he describes. Since Sulloway's thesis shows that cultural and socio-economic factors have little or no bearing on the evolutionary patterns established, previous dogmas will have to be revised or discarded. In more than one sense he's duplicating Darwin's own experience. The book concludes with a series of Appendices explaining how Sulloway built his database of events and people. He uses 121 historical "revolutions" and nearly two dozen scientific ones, as well as the Reformation to support his thesis. The criteria for selection are given and explained. He's not averse to challenges by other scholars, but they'd best have their data firmly in hand. He's buttressed his case admirably. Only one serious challenge to Sulloway's effort has emerged since this book was published. Readers should be aware of Judith Rich Harris' critique of Sulloway's methods in the Appendix of her The Nurture Assumption. This is not the place to examine the debate, but both should be reviewed by readers. \ostephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada\c

Pretty darned good:
Sulloway's expertly written book does have its biases, true, but they aren't pronounced enough to harm his research. I found it quite enlightening. And by the way, I'd have to contradict the gentleman here who claimed China has an unusually large number of 'oldest children' thanks to their stringent birth control policy. What China actually has is an unusually large number of only children. 'Oldest' is not synonymous with 'only'; you have to have younger siblings in order to be the 'oldest' of them. In fact, it would actually make more sense to say only children are 'youngest' children, since they're the youngest in their families. I'm getting a little facetious, of course; only children are neither 'oldest' or 'youngest'; their position in the family is different from either of those two categories. Just wanted to clarify that.

Innovation, Innovators and Acceptors rather:
I think the book is misrepresented by it's own title. It's not really a collection of knowledge on birth order and the psychological ramifications of birth order. Instead, the book is about applying what is known about birth order to see if there is a correlation between historical figures' birth order and family variables, and their degree of revolutionary innovation, or acceptance of revolutionary innovation. Most of the historically significant scientists are covered, such as Galileo, Copernicus, and Darwin (especially Darwin, there's whole chapters on Darwin). There's a lot of biographical information in the book in general.