Rating: 
Summary: SOCIALIZATION IS THE ISSUE; AMERICA SCHOOLS THE TARGET
Review: 1) "Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Values, and Creative Lives." Frank Sulloway. MIT.There can be no doubt that socialization takes place in the family. Now come the rebellions in EDUCATION that are born of this evidence. Given Professor Sulloway's extensive statistical evidence, there is no doubt about it at all. What this evidence means is of the utmost importance to education in the American public school system. It is a simple matter. Review and analysis of Sulloway must tackle the job. Certainly the book is important. The application of the evidentiary principles in it is a revolution in thinking. There are two distinct focal points. The most important is for schools, teaching theories, and their applications. Student do not acclimate to society and social rule or norms by peer interaction. Time need not be allocated to those things that SCIENCE proved cannot and do not happen. The extraordinary amounts of time given to socialization in schools, teacher training, and the texts for such mandates need revision and abandonment. The ridiculous practices of causing a nominally tardy student to miss more classes by sending them to the office for a "tardy slip" needs to slip away to never land from whence such idiotic practices came. Imagine this applied to life as so assiduously done by dimwit unimaginative public school teachers and administrators. Individuals who are aware that family pecking order is shaping their minds can work to enhance or oppose these proven effects. No nonsense entered into the research of Professor Sulloway means there'll be no nonsense out of applications of it. Extraordinary amounts of time spent on universally applying "tardy" rules and the even more arcane and picayune practices of schools and their administrators has led to contempt from within. We've gunfire, disorder and chaos in classrooms and public school halls only due to this arcane nonsense that never made sense in the first place. Colleges of Education need to revise their training, and re-train the robots and "generatrons" they've produced in administration and teaching programs. Certainly everyone knows that no one in the public schools is considered acceptable in Higher Education and that few make such transition to anywhere real learning takes place now. This is NEW. Prior to 'education theory' as taught practiced and learned in public schools it was not so. Being in charge of rules, socialization theory that never has had any substantial evidence to back it up and abandoning intensive study has long been the nature of Public School Teaching under the aegis of nonsense produced by bunk "education theorists." It always was illogical. No one could have ever accused American Public Schools of using logic for the entirety of the last five decades. Professor Sulloway can be disputed for input to categories of social changes and revolution in society. His basic work shows that innovators always come birth order deep into family structure. Family structure shapes society. That is indisputable. The utter hilarity of teachers and administrators shrieking that families are the causes of their unsolvable problems while simultaneously spending so much time usurping what ONLY families can do is an ironic nightmare that Professor Sulloway's research can bring to an end. No one has ever disrespect learning and all respect the dictum that not much at all is learned in American public schools. None out of High School in 2000 AD can pass an educational test from elementary school in 1890. The restoration of curricula for comprehensive learning is what Professor Sulloway is all about. Everyone is very much aware that students who were subjected to and measured by the socialization scoring in Public Schools regarding behavior fomented rebellions that led to gunfire in the halls and slaughter in the cafeteria since the "educators" and "administrators" were paying attention to everything but individual education and particular students in favor of norms that had no statistical evidence like Sulloway produced. Special Education is the worse of these genres since it is over 90% socialization training and almost no education at all. Shouting from the rooftops that they are being forced to be measured for progress when IQ is the determining factor is the vogue response of the Public Schools today. Were these 'schools' in the business of education instead of socialization there'd be something to measure. Professor Sulloway has given us a way to do this using salient facts. The modern fiction of PETER HOEG in BORDERLINERS, and older fiction like "UP THE DOWN STAIRCASE" by BEL KAUFMAN point to the same truths. De-institutionalization of the MILITARY in the name of efficiency and cooperation; and reform in all institutions as called for in KESEY'S ONE FLEW OVER the CUCKOO'S NEST are more examples of the same. Kesey was also a National Champion and All-America in Wrestling before going berserk with The Merry Pranksters. The GOLDEN RULE of sanity restored is what Professor Sulloway has provided when his evidence is applied in society in all appropriate settings. Professional Sports are no exception. The authoritarians are gone. The authority of statistics used by Phil Jackson at Chicago and every other specialized coach show persuasion and education to exist. Surely no one will accuse many professional athletes of being very bright; though some are. Success is not based upon that in group settings of ANY kind. Sulloway is the evidence for what all with sense already knew.
Rating: 
Summary: this ain't science
Review: Although the data supporting his hypothesis look very impressive and almost convincing, the problem I have with this book it that Mr Sulloway picks his Revolutionary Theories for reasons that are dubious. For example, excluding certain theories on the basis that "they would have been discovered by others around the same time" can hardly be called scientific. And then, after lots of very impressive statistics, he wanders off into the land of anecdotal evidence science that makes the reader wonder why he's working at MIT in the first place. Although there is probably a basis for some of his conclusions, and it is a great effort to bring science to this subject of popular prejudice, I can't support the raving reviews it received in the press.
Rating: 
Summary: Strong on history of science, weak on politics
Review: by Steve Sailer (http://members.aol.com/steveslr) -- Published in National Review, 12/9/96, 1,050 words -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Born to Rebel arrives on a crest of imposing hype, with serious scholars comparing its importance to that of the works of Charles Darwin. For 26 years, this statistically inclined MIT historian has labored to uncover why it was Darwin who originated the theory of natural selection. After building a database of 6,566 scientists and other historic figures from the 16th through the early 20th Centuries, the answer's now obvious to him: Darwin was the 4th child born in his family. To Dr. Sulloway, much of history is literally sibling rivalry writ large, an eternal struggle between conservative, authoritarian, and closed-minded "firstborns" and liberal, rebellious, altruistic, and open-minded "laterborns." (Pop quiz: Name Sulloway's birth rank and politics.) Despite the author's tendency to torture his examples to fit his comically obvious prejudice that firstborn = conservative = bad (one of his illustrations of a firstborn with a "conservative ideology" is the Unabomber), there is almost certainly some truth in his general idea. Sulloway's findings agree fairly well with popular stereotypes, the urban folk wisdom of our time. One of his accomplishments is to solidly ground his logic in Neo-Darwinian sociobiology rather than literary movements like Freudianism: sibling rivalry is genetically motivated competition for scarce parental resources. Older, bigger children defend their privileges, while younger kids try to subvert the status quo. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree. (The "only child," by the way, appear to be too variable to generalize about.) A careful reading reveals, however, that Dr. Sulloway does not actually explain the cause of Darwin's creativity. It turns out that laterborn scientists are not significantly more innovative. (Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were all firstborns. Genius remains largely inexplicable.) Instead, laterborn scientists are merely more receptive to other's innovatory theories, especially when there isn't much evidence one way or another. Once solid data becomes available, this gap rapidly closes. (Firstborns, in turn, seem to deserve some credit for resisting new but bad ideas like phrenology, the once-popular pseudo-science of predicting personality from skull bumps, which laterborns were nine times more likely to favor.) Birth order, it appears, primarily influences opinions, not accomplishments. Keep in mind that those of us who get our opinions published tend to vastly overrate the historic importance of published opinions. Despite heroic research efforts, lucid prose style, and admirable zeal for statistically testing hypotheses, at times Sulloway can sound like Matt Groening's Seventh Type of College Professor: The-Single-Theory-to-Explain-Everything-Maniac. ("The nation that controls magnesium controls the universe!!!") Yet, family dynamics are a curiously impotent Single Theory. No nation can use birth order to control the universe because no nation can control birth order. The great engines of history remain cultural differences propagated through families, not differences between individuals spontaneously generated over and over again within families. For example, in one of his few attempts to explain distinctions between countries, Sulloway cites France's low birth rate and consequent high proportion of firstborns to explain why so many French scientists stubbornly resisted Darwin. Yet, since France's low birthrate continued into the 20th Century, by this logic France's surplus of firstborns should also have made French soldiers loyal conformists, while fast-growing Germany would be saddled with an undisciplined army of too many "born to rebel" laterborns. The events of May, 1940, however, would seem to cast doubt on this reasoning. When Sulloway leaves the relatively firm ground of scientific history for the swamp of politics, his analysis becomes a bit of a mess, partly because politics itself is messy. Unlike scientific revolutions, most political revolutions -- whether the American revolution, England's Glorious Revolution of 1688, Japan's Meiji Restoration, the Velvet Revolution of 1989, Mussolini's putsch or Hitler's takeover -- contain both radical and conservative elements. Eventually, somebody may make sense of the relations between birth order and politics, but they'll need a far more sophisticated understanding of politics than Sulloway brings to the job. His first weakness is that he assumes that "conservative," "liberal," and "radical" means roughly the same thing in all places and all times. For example, his description of Darwin's politics -- "Darwin was ahead of his time, and his worldview was that of a twentieth-century liberal" -- is a much more accurate portrayal of Sulloway's own ideology. True, Darwin was a "liberal", but a nineteenth-century free market liberal, infinitely closer in outlook to Milton Friedman than Hillary Clinton. Darwin was linked to the rising tide of survival-of-the-fittest capitalism by blood and marriage (both his mother and wife were Wedgwoods, members of the factory-owning family that developed the first brand name in history); by heavy stock market investments; and by intellectual heritage (the single most important influence on Darwin was economist Thomas Malthus, a follower of Adam Smith). In spirit, Darwinism was Whig free market economics applied to biology. Further, Sulloway seems not to realize that it's much harder to define what's the orthodoxy to rebel against today than in, say, 1517 (the first year in his database), when the Catholic Church unquestionably defined the intellectual Establishment. He tends to assume scientific progress remains upsetting to conservatives. Yet, beginning in the 1920's with the discovery that subatomic reality is indeterminate (which flummoxed atheistic determinists), many recent scientific revolutions have proved deeply gratifying to the prejudices of sophisticated conservatives. For example, the now-validated Big Bang theory was long pooh-poohed by the scientific establishment out of anti-religious bias: the Big Bang is disturbingly close to Genesis ("Let there be light") and Thomas Aquinas' Prime Mover proof for the existence of God. Most notably, the sociobiologists' ongoing "rediscovery of human nature" validates conservative distrust of the dominant liberal dogma that all differences between humans are the product of social conditioning. Today, the Pope appears more enthusiastic about Darwinism than the self-proclaimed "cultural radicals" who control who gets tenure in university humanities departments. Paradoxically, by offering even more evidence that human nature is fixed and that the power of state-mandated social reform to advance harmony and happiness is highly limited, Sulloway ends up offering additional reassurance to conservatives in their rebellion against liberal othodoxy. # # # Steve Sailer (steveslr@aol.com) is a businessman, writer, and only child.
Rating:
Summary: Worth it!
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Worth it!
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Innovation, Innovators and Acceptors rather
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Innovation, Innovators and Acceptors rather
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A thought provoking look at the factors shaping personality
Review: I was prepared to dismiss this book and its premise because of prior experience with birth order theories. However, Mr. Sulloway's book is tightly reasoned and supported by a great deal of research. In the end, Sulloway avoids the reductionist trap by showing how birth order interacts with a variety of other environmental factors to produce personality. Sulloway has put the issue of our biological nature squarely on the table by showing the relationship of human history to natural selection and the life forces that drive all living things. This book won't do much for our egos, but may well explain a great deal of human behavior. My only concern is the mischief that the inevitable misuse of his ideas is likely to produce
Rating:
Summary: Sibling strivings
Review: 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. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: Sibling strivings
Review: 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. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
|
