He's Smarter Because Mom Loved Him Best (IQ, Birth Order, and Family Dynamics)

Eldest children learned late last week that they have (marginally) higher IQ's than their younger siblings. Yes, as if their egos needed any more stroking. The study, conducted among firstborn children in Norway determined that 2.3 IQ points differentiate the average Norwegian firstborn from the average Norwegian second-born.

The results of this study confirmed what I’d long suspected: First-borns are know-it-alls and the root of the problem is the way in which their parents treated them as children.

I'm an only child, so I've got no horse in this particular race. I've spent years listening to: eldest children complain about being put under too much pressure; middle children kvetch about feeling ignored; and youngest children whine about never being taken seriously. They do all this while telling "singletons" like me that we're selfish, self-centered, and spoiled. So, I'm unbiased in the sense that I think all three groups are full of it.

(For the record, having your parents' undivided attention is a double-edged sword. You do get a lot of encouragement. There's also not a whole lot you can get away with, and it's not like you can ever blame anything on anyone else. If something's broken, it's obvious that you did it. If something didn't get done, it's obvious you didn't do it.)

Anyway, the study itself seems to highlight some important things about family dynamics. In the case of eldest children, they may "benefit" from somewhat higher expectations placed upon them by their parents. They are often called upon to tutor their younger brothers and sisters.

Family dynamics are important. I once dated a woman who claimed (only slightly sarcastically) that her parents had managed to raise 3 only children.

Family "roles" are often self-fulfilling prophecies. People do, within certain limits, tend to live up or down to the expectations of others. If you're told often enough at an early enough age that you're the responsible one or the smart one, there's a good chance you're going to act the part to the best of your ability.

I was heartened by certain aspects of the study. As an only child, I can now blame my parents for deciding not to have any more kids. This has cost me 3 IQ points. More importantly, their selfishness denied me the opportunity to develop important skills in terms of mentoring and teaching. Alternatively, had I been a younger sibling, I might be more inclined to take risks. Finally, their selfish (or prudent, depending upon one’s point of view) decision not to provide me with siblings has also fostered the sort of spoiled, self-centeredness that would cause me to interpret the study in this manner. Who knew?

The Real Obama Question: What Would His Candidacy Tell Us About Ourselves?

At the 1956 Democratic National Convention, a young first-term Senator stepped out of the shadows and into the national limelight. Though he did not emerge from that convention as his party’s nominee for either the Presidency or the Vice-Presidency, Sen. John F. Kennedy turned that national exposure into a surge of momentum that eventually carried him all the way to the White House.

The buzz surrounding Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois reminds many seasoned Beltway observers of Pres. John F. Kennedy at a similar point in his political career. Sen. Obama gained national prominence at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Though he has not announced that he is a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, such an announcement seems, at this point, to be a fait accompli.

Despite his current q-ratings, it will be very difficult for Sen. Obama to secure his party’s nomination, much less the White House itself. Nonetheless, it seems inevitable that his candidacy will represent a watershed moment in American politics. It is likely to provide concrete evidence of our society’s true attitudes towards race, ethnicity, and even religious tolerance. It will hopefully force us to examine the often-hypocritical stance we take towards information about politicians’ past behavior, particularly when it comes to recreational drug use. We have a history of being quick to condemn behavior that, in ourselves, we are just as quick to label “youthful indiscretions”.

The Positives

Sen. Obama is young, articulate, and photogenic. He presents himself with a directness and candor that stands in stark contrast to those politicians who often seem incapable of providing straightforward answers to even the most unambiguous questions.

He is inarguably intelligent. Obama is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, who served as President of the Law Review. He taught at the University of Chicago while working for a firm specializing in civil rights law.

Sen. Obama also seems to know, whether by instinct or observation, how to market himself. He recognized at the very start of his political career that some skeletons should be exhumed and displayed as early as possible. Sen. Obama revealed his teenaged drug use in an autobiography published before his first political campaign. When asked by Jay Leno whether he inhaled, he simply replied “That was the point.” This answer showed a politician capable of thinking on his feet. It also showed a man with the ability and willingness to admit to his mistakes without coming across as either “preachy” or hypocritical. To many, that statement turned a potential land mine into a minor issue.

Barack Obama was not a member of the United States Senate when many of his potential opponents were faced with the decision whether or not to authorize the President to invade Iraq. As such, he does not have to contend with charges that he rubber-stamped what is now seen by many as a fundamentally flawed policy. Nor does he have to contend with charges that he flip-flopped on the issue, supporting the Bush agenda when it enjoyed immense popular support only to withdraw that support when that popularity began to wane.

The Negatives

Sen. Obama’s opponents are certain to highlight his lack of experience, particularly with respect to national politics and international issues. Expect them to bring this up early and often. Unfortunately for Obama, Pres. Bush’s current approval ratings mean that he cannot even defend himself by asserting that his level of experience is at least on par with that of George W. Bush when he took office in January 2001.

He also faces the same Catch-22 facing any Democrat seeking to gain the White House in 2008. It will be impossible for him to win the general election without securing his party’s nomination. Yet the stance on issues that he might have to take to secure that nomination might make him unpalatable to voters in the general election.

If history is any guide, the idea that “every boy can be President” is a myth with no basis in reality. No non-white male and only one non-Protestant has ever been elected President of the United States. If, 46 years ago, many voters wondered whether or not a son of Joseph P. Kennedy would take direct orders from the Vatican while seated in the Oval Office, what sort of concerns might the voting public have about a multiracial candidate with the middle name of "Hussein", who was educated, however briefly, at what one magazine report described as a madrassa (Islamic religious school) in Indonesia? From the fifth grade on, Sen. Obama attended and eventually graduated from a preparatory school in Honolulu, Hawaii. Still, the issue of his alleged “Muslim education” (a thinly veiled accusation of Muslim indoctrination) has already been raised.

The flip side to the fact that Obama does not carry any baggage with respect to Iraq, is that he will now have to choose his stance on the war very, very carefully. Voters have had a comparatively long time to process and evaluate the stances on the war taken by his opponents, however conflicting and contradictory they may be. If Sen. Obama makes a statement or casts a vote that proves unpopular, he will not have very long to recover before the primary season rolls around.

Ultimately though, the largest obstacle Sen. Obama faces is that he is in danger of “peaking” too soon. A great deal of his appeal lies in the fact that he’s a fresh face, a possible alternative to the seemingly preordained nomination of Sen. Hilary Clinton. As much as Americans love underdogs, we have a similar distaste for overwhelming favorites. Even if we know the little guy’s not going to win, we cheer for him loudly all the same. But it’s only January 2007. How can a fresh face remain fresh between now and the start of primary season in 2008? Only time will tell.

CNN debunks false report about Obama

On Monday, January 22, CNN filed a story from Indonesia regarding the early education of Barack Obama. According to CNN, Sen. Obama attended the Basuki school in Jakarta, Indonesia, for two years, before transferring to a Catholic school. CNN interviewed one of Sen. Obama's classmates, as well as the Basuki school's deputy headmaster. Both men stated that the school was not and never had been an Islamic school.

Just Get Over It?! A Virginia Lawmaker's advice to blacks about slavery

On Tuesday, January 16, 2007, a member of the Virginia state legislature said that black people should "get over" slavery. Del. Frank D. Hargrove, age 79, made his statements in the course of voicing opposition to a proposed measure that would apologize on behalf of the state to the descendants of slaves. Hargrove’s main point was that, since slavery ended nearly 140 years ago, Virginia’s black citizens should just “get over it”.

Needless to say, black lawmakers in Virginia (and elsewhere) were swift to denounce Hargrove's comments. I also denounce Hargrove's comments.

140 years is a long time, and if this measure were advocating some form of monetary reparation, I could see several reasons for voicing an objection, the main one being simple unfeasibility. It would be one thing if there existed a major corporation that, upon examination, was actually Virginia Confederated Slave Holdings d/b/a RicherThanSinCo. RicherThanSinCo. could, of course, be easily traced to a partnership between and among Virginia’s wealthiest plantation owners. This is not the case, however. Reparations would end up coming from the pockets of taxpayers. Many of these taxpayers would be the descendants of individuals who were not slaveowners or otherwise direct beneficiaries of the slave system. For others, at what point do the sins of the father no longer apply?

By that same token, there was a time, a generation or two removed from slavery, when determining just how much might have been owed to whom and by whom could, at least in theory, have been a viable option. With the passage of time, and as more time continues to pass, this is just not going to happen.

The issue of monetary reparations, whatever its original merits, has, unfortunately, become a boogeyman that pundits and politicians alike trot out to frighten members of the public who don’t understand that it’s an idea with little to no hope of ever becoming a reality.

An apology, though, is an entirely different story. An apology constitutes an important symbolic gesture. An apology represents more than just an explicit recognition of the inhumanity and barbarity of the system of chattel slavery that existed in the antebellum South. An apology is also an implicit recognition of the racial inequities that continued long after slavery ended. It is a recognition of the damaging legacy of racial violence and Jim Crow. In short, an apology would cost Virginia nothing, but its value would be immeasurable.

Blacks don’t need to “just get over” slavery. Legislators like Frank Hargrove just need to “get it”.