Discussion of NurtureShock, Chapter 6 "The Sibling Effect"

We're talking about NurtureShock by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman all summer. One chapter every Friday. Jump in whenever you'd like. The first week we talked about Chapter 1 about praise. The second week we talked about Chapter 2 about sleep. The third week we talked about talking about race with your kids. The fourth week we talked about why kids lie and how we're inadvertently promoting that. Last week we talked about intelligence testing for preschoolers for school placement purposes. This week we're talking about how having siblings socializes children.

This week's chapter is entitled "The Sibling Effect" and it discusses why siblings fight and whether only children are less socialized than children with siblings are. I was particularly interested in this chapter for two reasons: First, my sister(-in-law) is an only child, and she's one of the best people I've ever met in every way. Even if she was the only only I'd ever met, she'd be evidence enough for me that onlies don't have problems relating to other people, so I wanted to see what the research said. Secondly, I have two boys (ages 8 and 5) who cannot keep their hands off each other. They are either hugging each other or punching each other, but more often they're punching each other. They fight what seems like constantly. (It demoralizes me. A lot.) I wanted to find out if that was going to get any better.

Here's the traditional wisdom: The basic premise of "needing" to have a sibling or five so you won't end up unsocialized is that kids learn to interact with other people by interacting with their siblings. So kids who grow up alone won't be as well-socialized as kids with siblings. (The book didn't go there, but I'd also say that I feel like there's an idea in the culture that siblings need to be 3.5 years apart or less or else they won't socialize well.)

Turns out (of course, because this is NurtureShock), that this is completely wrong. Kids don't learn to socialize with siblings at all. The biggest predictor for how well two siblings get along is how the older one gets along with their best friend at the time of the younger sibling's appearance in the family.  That held true across all age spacings, sex breakdowns, etc.

*Really* interesting, isn't it? If you read the chapter, you probably took a few minutes or days to think about this. If you're just reading it now, feel free to let that digest before you go on.

Here's what's really happening. With a friend, kids have to learn how to be kind, monitor the other person's feeling, share, find things they both want to do, and all the other stuff that goes into being a friend. If they don't, their friend won't want to be their friend anymore.

A sibling, on the other hand, is always there, no matter what the kid does, says, or forces them to eat. You can be kind and generous to your sibling or truly cruel and brutal to your sibling, and they'll still be there the next morning. You're stuck together, and how you act toward each other doesn't change that.

So there's no feedback loop of socialization with a sibling like there is with a friend. Of *course* the sibling relationships come out of the habits of friendship that have already been learned by the older one.

(The book didn't go into this, but I think this explains so much. Why siblings spaced together under 15 months or so tend to be either thick as thieves or mortal enemies--the older one had no practice being friends, so they have no model and it's a blank slate. It also explains why some spacings seem better than others--if those developmental ages are tough for the older child socially anyway, it makes sense that that will carry over into the sibling relationship.)

This also, of course, explains why there is no replicable difference in how socialized only children are compared to kids with siblings.

Now, here was the part that actually made me feel both worse and then much better: The way your kids interact now is not likely to change until the older one leaves the house. So if your kids fight a lot now, they're going to keep doing it. However, if they're fighting, they're also probably pretty engaged with each other, so you could take a more detailed look at how they interact. The chapter talks in detail about a program designed to help siblings enjoy playing with each other more, and what the leaders of the program were focusing on was that engagement. They weren't trying to stop the fighting, but instead to increase the fun the kids had with each other.

That was a big switch in my head. I've been thinking, "Why can't they just leave each other alone??" But I really don't want them to. I want them to enjoy each other. And if enjoying each other and doing fun things together also means they fight as part of it, I'll take it.

I'm going to try to replicate some of the stuff the program was doing to help kids have more fun together. I've already been trying to make the focus of our house activities they can do together instead of separately, and I think I'm going to keep doing that but extend it to other areas, like meal prep and chores. I'm also going to focus more on the way they engage with each other and worry less about the fighting. I've been talking to some adult male friends who have brothers, and they report that they *still* will wrestle and beat each other up when they're together, but they also seem to genuinely enjoy being with each other, too.

Who else read this chapter, and what did you take away from it? What did I miss in my summary?

Comments

[Laura]

I haven't had a chance to pick up the book, but I'm wondering if it talked about the research on siblings and theory of mind? (TOM is a big area of research in developmental psychology - in a nutshell, understanding that other peoples' minds are different from yours, and being able to act on that knowledge. Really important for things like communication and empathy ... and lying and deceit.) There is some interesting research showing that having siblings facilitates understanding of false belief, which is the classic test of TOM (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119263036/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0). BUT! if your sibling is a twin, it does not have the same effect (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118733875/abstract). There seems to be something about interacting with people who are different - and the more different, the better - in close relationships that helps them develop this social understanding. This really isn't evidence that twins without other siblings or only children are developmentally "delayed" or at a disadvantage - TOM develops in a pretty small window. But it's some pretty cool evidence of the very real effects of interactions with siblings.

[Charity]

Just reinforcing the fighting sibling finding, my sister and I fought HORRIBLY our entire time growing up. Then I moved really far away for a few years before coming back to the same area. Now she's the person I turn to first, other than my husband, for advice or conversation. I love her to bits. We even lived together for a few months when I first came back to the area and there were no problems.

[Moxie]

Laura, no, they did not talk about TOM! Veeeeery interesting. Thank you SO MUCH for linking to this.

[caramama]

I have to be honest, I was really dissappointed in this chapter overall. Maybe it was because I had just this week finished reading Siblings Without Rivalry, which was such a good book with very helpful ideas and information. I expected more from this chapter about how siblings communicate with each other and, I don't know, more about other areas of siblings relationships that simply "they should play more together, and then everything is fine." I felt the chapter leaned way to heavily on one person's research, excluding all the other research by saying that none of the other books on siblings was based in research. I'm sorry, but I have a really hard time believe that NONE of the other books have anything supporting them.

I read the part about the older kids relationship with their best friends differently than you, Moxie. I read it as overall how the older kid has played with their best friend indicates how they will treat a sibling, not that it was how they treat the best friend at the time of the sibling's birth.

Either way, I found that pretty useless information for my kids, and many other kids I know. My second was born when my daughter was 2 years 3 months. She had friends and cousins up to that point, but no real "best friend." In addition, up until that point she (like most kids her age) mostly did parallel play, so the interaction was limited. I do no think that means that she will only ever do parallel play with her brother, because she wasn't previously at a developmental period for more interactive play. So kids learn how to interact with their siblings from their interactions with the "best friends" before the sibling is born? How does that apply to my 2 year old who hadn't developed interactive play nor a "best" friend at that point? I'm going to have to say pthhhh :-P (that's me sticking out my tongue).

I feel like I'm being really negative. This is the first chapter that I haven't liked this book. But I found no real practical help.

Meanwhile, in the Siblings Without Rivalry book, I had just read all sorts of ways to help the kids learn to negotiate with each other and deal with each other. I read the Notes section of Nuture Shock (in the back of the book) for this chapter, hoping that there might be something discussing teaching kids how to deal with each other besides just encouraging interactive play. Instead, it said that the books out there teach parents to interfer and take over (I'm using my own words here). That is not what the best selling book I just finished was teaching parents at all.

I felt this chapter was too short, too little researched and a big, fat, unhelpful disappointment. My kids are already constantly trying to play together at 3 and 1. I want to make sure they have the skills to play well, negotiate and share with each other and with their friends through their whole lives. I don't think we simply have to shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh well. Siblings fight." I think we can help them, and I'd like to read research on what can help, not some blanket statement saying nothing we do can help. It's up to our kids to figure it out, as long as they play together.

I better stop ranting now. Sorry!

[Christine]

This chapter had a huge impact on me. Not because there was anything helpful as far as the issues in our house, but because it seriously altered how I've been looking at things.

Kids are 2 1/2 years apart. Older is on the autism spectrum. At the time of his sister's birth, he didn't have a best friend. He didn't have any friends. He actively avoided interacting with other children. He did no imaginary play.

Why on earth would I ever have thought that he would magically play and get along with a sibling, just because she was a sibling?

In the past several months, therapy has made a huge impact on Max and the way he plays and interacts with kids, and I've noticed his relationship with his sister has improved. They still fight - he has trouble with conflict resolution and making himself understood - but there's a lot more cooperative play and he does seek her out for games now. I'm hopeful now.

Also, since I just read the book last week, I hadn't realized who the author was. He also wrote The First 20 Million is Always the Hardest, which is hard to track down but well worth it. One of my favorite books.

[the milliner]

I was pleasantly surprised to read the info about onlies as I'm currently struggling with figuring out a) if I want another child and b) if we should have another child. DH & I both have siblings, so it's something I don't know a lot about. The sibling information was interesting, but as I'm not sure if it's something we'll have to deal with, it was more food for thought at this point than anything.

But, the onlies info did help me a bit in my quest for the answers to the above questions. Or at least helped remove some of the guilt if we decide not to have a 2nd child. Though I was/am a bit worried about socialization for our son if he remains an only, I have to admit that my bigger fear is for him being 'alone' when he is an adult, after we die, and having to care for us in our old age and having no other siblings to lean on. I know having another sibling doesn't guarantee this. But... Well, let's just say I still have some things to work through on this subject.

@caramama, I agree that the downfall of this book is that several chapters leave you wanting more. Sometimes it's like 'Don't do this', but then they don't tell you what to do. (I felt the same for the race chapter).

[Mama Fuss]

As one of the most social people I know (and everyone tells me this, I'm not simply saying that about my own self with no other feedback) and being an only child, I am amused that people think that only children don't know how to socialize. I think only children tend to know how to socialize better with all ages (in many cases) because their only options were to socialize with people outside their family, often adults. (like the friends of their parents)

I haven't read the chapter, I'm very behind on my reading. But I thought that was an interesting tidbit from Moxie's summary.

[Cloud]

@caramama, I was also disappointed in this chapter. Like @the millner, I find that most chapters leave me wanting more information. It is like they have written a bunch of little provocative essays, but not done the work to finish the story. Maybe they thought fewer people would read it if the chapters were longer and/or denser with more research. Hard to say. I'm still reading the book, and it is giving me things to think about, so I don't hate it. But I don't love it.

Anyway- about siblings. I'm part way through Siblings without Rivalry, too, and agree- that has a lot more useful tips.

What I took away from this chapter was that I should focus on giving my kids opportunities to have fun together in addition to working on teaching the skills for interpersonal relationships.

What I wanted was some more information about whether there is anything in that research that applies NOW, when my kids are still quite young (3 years and 9 months). Pumpkin likes to try to include Petunia in her games (current favorite is playing school, and she wants Petunia to be one of the students), but Petunia is obviously not old enough yet to really participate. So all the time I'm reading the chapter, I was wondering- yes, but- what should I focus on now?

Did the people with older kids find the chapter more helpful?

[Moxie]

Cloud and Caramama, maybe it is more useful for parents of older kids.

I didn't go into this book expecting any how-tos, so maybe that's why I like it so much. Nobody pretending they know what you should do with your kids...

Caramama, I think SWR and this chapter are apples and oranges. It seemed to me that the groups studied in this chapter were the demographic of parents who would already have read and applied everything from SWR. Which may have been why those studies found that rivalry for parents' affection was NOT an issue for the kids. It was more about looking at things from a different perspective (as Christine indicated) and realizing that avoiding fights wasn't the most important thing you want in your kids' relationships with each other. SWR was looking at healthy vs. unhealthy fighting and helping you lay the groundwork for "free" (of baggage and favoritism) relationships. I don't think they conflict at all, or that this chapter was disparaging SWR.

[Lindsay]

I have to jump in on this conversation even though I have not read the book at all - saw Moxie's tweet about it and had to read because this topic has been on my mind a lot lately. I'm expecting my second child, who will be born when my son is exactly 3 (hopefully not on the same day, although it's possible as my due dates are the same, yikes!). My husband and I have always been concerned about our son's socialization. Both my husband and I were painfully shy and awkward as kids, and my husband still struggles with this from time to time. I'm an only child, he has an older sister. I distinctly remember the pain of not knowing how to relate to other kids and I never want my son to feel that. We are not around a lot of other children (no family members the same age, not many at our church, and none of our friends have kids yet). We have enrolled our son in a preschool program a couple days a week so he will have an opportunity to be around kids his age, but the comment from Caramama above really made sense to me. At 2 1/2 my son does not have a "best friend" yet. He plays fairly well with the kids at his school and his teachers say he interacts well, but I'm not sure how much of a "best friend" he could have at this age. So I guess I'm curious if the book addresses younger siblings in this situation at all. I'm not only concerned with my son interacting with a sibling, but with other children as well.

[paola]

It seems @caramama and I are leading parallel lives. I am right at the end of 'Siblings without Rivalry' too and have found it invaluable. In fact, it has made me realise that I have been going about things the wrong way re. the way my kids relate to each other.

I also agree that this chapter didn't make me think, 'wow, that's interesting' either. The only thing that made me take interest was that my kids ( 3.5/5.5, spacing 23.5 months) will most likely be relating to each other the same way as they do now, till they leave home, and seeing Italian kids don't leave home till they get married ( and they tend to marry in their thirties) their bickerìng will likely be the death of me.

To be honest, my kids are great together most of the time. At the moment they are both at home seeing the eldest is on holidays and they are thick as thieves. They spend so much of the day in imaginative play, entertaining themsleves with the very basic of props and I hear them laughing and screeching in delight until..... the eldest starts bossing the youngest and then the youngest gets sick of all the bossing and wollops the eldest. This tends to always happen an hour or so before lunch ( hungry? tired?) and then around dinner time again. I can handle that though. They are so much better during the hols than during the school week when the only time they actully play together is at the end of the day when hunger and tiredness come into play.

BTW, the eldest has always been a bossy britches and I remember the first play date he ever went on ( I was 28 weeks pregnant), he was bossing his little mate around, left right and centre.

[Stacy]

@the milliner, I'm in a similar boat as you with regards to having my 4.5 year old son possibly be our only child. I haven't read the book, but decided to read this post because I'm interested in research on only children.

I'm not sure if you are a member of babycenter.com, but there is a wonderful board on there called "Parents of Only Children" that has been a huge help for me and my struggle with this decision. For what it's worth, I'm pretty certain that my son will remain an only, and I'm okay with this. Just thought I'd share in case you are looking for personal stories from parents of onlies, both by choice and circumstance.

[Linda]

I have not read the book, but found the findings you've discussed really interesting. I grew up the youngest of three children (older brother and older sister) and we had very little fighting growing up. For us, if I happened to be closer with my sister my brother wanted in on the fun and would get involved. If my sister was being cranky or bossy with me, my brother and I would ignore her until she could changer her tune.

The dynamic of three always worked better in my opinion because if someone was being annoying they would be ostraciszed and
miss out. I have three boys now (7.5, 5.5 and 3) who get along well. And I thank my lucky stars because many of our two kid family friends seem to have more issues with the kids getting along. Could be personality type? Who really knows? But the theory in the book sounds interesting.

[Amy]

I can't even compose a comment right now, because I am literally overcome with a sense of relief. I have SO MUCH pressure around me, and internally, to provide my 4-year-old daughter with a sibling. And the idea of adding another child right now crushes my soul. No more!

(On a related note, I would love to have a discussion about how on earth employed-outside-the-home parents help their kids develop strong friendships, but that's for another day.)

[hush]

I read the whole book around the time Moxie recommended it... and now I have to admit I cannot remember a single takeaway about this chapter! Sorry, I have nothing to offer but my own limited experience.

I'm an only child, and I've never had much trouble socializing though I have to work at it because it is not natural to my introverted personality - which I think I was born with and has nothing to do with having no siblings. My dad is the 3rd of 12 kids, and has great social skills - he was voted prom king in both high school and college. I think I picked up additional skills by watching him interact. My mom, however, is the 2nd of 7 kids and has limited social skills & no friends - she is very shy and can't be vulnerable with anyone. So sample size 3 here, I'm convinced the number of kids in your family doesn't necessarily make you a social winner or a loser so much as your own temperament (introvert/extrovert) plus opportunities in your life to build skills by watching & relating in some way, be it through friendship or family, with a very socially skilled person, IMHO.

About family fighting - onlies often fight triangularly with both parents. I know I did from about age 8 on. I think arguing with adults as a kid is a pretty useful life skill. I know I have never been intimidated by people much older than me simply because of their age, and I think that had something to do with it.

[Melba]

I haven't read this book, but I am enjoying the discussions here, I find them really interesting! A few comments on siblings:

@Moxie, my BFF is an only, and she too is one of the best people I know in every way. She is excellent at making and keeping friends and certainly had no socialization issues growing up. I have three sisters, and am close with them so I tend to have less friends. She has no siblings, so relies on her friends more for the kind of support I rely on my siblings for.

I also completely agree about kids continuing to fight until they start moving out. Or at least until they are adults. There was major fighting an my house growing up, but now my 3 sisters and I are all very close, and started to become friends with eachother as we each approached adulthood (late teens, early 20's).

And I'm going to agree with @caramama that younger kids not having a best friend nor playing interactively at the time of a sibling's birth doesn't mean that they won't play interactively with a sibling once both are old enough to do so. My Rosie (3 y.) is already trying to play interactively with Annie (6 mo.) even though Annie obviously can't play back (but does encourage her with smiles and giggles).

I have this unrealistic hope that Rosie and Annie with be inseparable best friends, but growing up with siblings I know that the more likely scenario is that they will play together at times (particularly when put in a new or fun situation, like on a vacation for example) but will also fight, and the fights might get violent or particularly mean once they are teenagers.

To make my point about teenage girls fighting... once I threw a chair at my sister and broke it. I also slammed her door so hard that the suspended tile ceiling came crashing down on her. Her retaliations included pulling out all my dresser drawers and dumping them out in my room, dumping a large box full of styrofoam peanuts in my room (found them in things like a year later), and scrathing my face out of a whole album of family photos (pre-digital age - these pics are just gone forever now). Girls can be brutal.

[the milliner]

@Mama Fuss, I think your point about onlies being adept at socializing with others of all ages was exactly one of the strongest points I picked up in the chapter, in regards to onlies.

Re-thinking about it, I don't actually have any concerns about an only child being a social child. All of my only friends are actually quite sociable, further confirming your & the chapter's point on the matter. DS seems to be incredibly social to boot, so I'm not so worried about him from that perspective.

I guess when I think about 'socialized', what I'm mostly thinking of is the concept that only children can have a tendency to be more self-centred as they've never had to share their parents attention, affection, toys & material things with siblings etc. As I write this it sounds like complete hogwash. But still, I think there is this stigma related to onlies out there (along with a whole bunch of other ones, I'm sure).

Everyone wants their kid to grow up knowing how to share and to have a sense that the world is not always all about them. I guess this is where parental guilt factors in. You worry you're depriving them of a very essential life experience. But the reality is, I guess you have to create these life experiences in other ways. @MamaFuss or any other onlies out there - any thoughts?

[Katy]

I too read this chapter with interest because one thing we hoped would happen when we had a second child is that it would give our son - who is on the autism spectrum and doesn't do much "playing" -- more "practice" at playing, pretending, and being social. He was 3 when the new baby came and he absolutely loves his baby brother but really doesn't know how to engage with him. I think some of it is simply an age thing - he's now 4 and just wants to roughhouse with his 1 year old brother - but I think some of it is that as he doesn't know how to play with his friends, he logically has a hard time playing with his brother.

Still, we hope that seeing his brother play might encourage him to model him a bit and at least he will have a lot more opportunities for social interaction, even if it's "fighting" over toys etc. One thing that's always true with having a child with developmental delays - you're always happy when they're doing something "typical" even if it's fighting or having a meltdown!!!

[caramama]

@Moxie and @Cloud - You both made really good points. I will try to appreciate the chapter on its own merits, and not compare it to SWR. Thanks for that perspective and everyone's thoughts on my rant--I mean opinion.

However, I still think that the chapter was not balanced. It really relied heavily on that one researcher and her thoughts on everything sibling. She had an interesting perspective, and I will definitely add into my parenting of siblings things I learned from this chapter. But still, IMHO it was very lopsided in it's coverage. (Perhaps that's my masters in journalism coming out...)

@Lindsay - The chapter did not address kids who don't have true "best friends" by the time siblings are born. It does make really good points about getting siblings to play with each other, so it is a worthwhile read.

@research about onlies - I did love the information about only children and how not having siblings is NOT detrimental to anyone!

@paola - This is not the first time we've been leading parallel lives!

[MrsHaley]

As an adult only, I was worried that I would have no idea how to raise siblings. What I took away from this chapter is that parents have to be deliberate about managing their kids' interactions so the majority turns out to be positive. We have noticed SUCH a difference in behavior when we take deliberate, focused one-on-one time with our kids (3.5 and 22 months) ... Free-floating, unstructured time together (like, 'I'm going to fold laundry, you two "go play"') always results in meltdowns. Always. Any time one parent can go off with one child (even to the other side of the yard or further up the sidewalk) everyone does better. I used to think this was dysfunctional, but after reading this chapter, I feel more like it's insuring their interactions with each other are mostly positive, or at least neutral (like dinnertime or riding in the car). It's also why 3 kids wouldn't be a good idea for our family. Man-on-man defense works best for us.

Also, @caramama -- I read SWR soon after my youngest was born ... your kids are similar in age to mine and I thought the techniques were geared to older, more self-aware and verbal children so I planned to read it again later (like when they are both school aged). What did you find that applies to our preschool/toddler stage? Which techniques are you using right now?

And @Amy, having/being an only is great! I really liked having my parents all to myself. I think there is more social pressure to have more than one child these days because ART has progressed so much more, so the people who "couldn't" have more than one (or any!) child/ren in the 60's and 70's can now do so more easily. Not that ART is easy, by any means! But I think 30+ years ago, there were just those couples who "couldn't" and so had one or none and that's how it was. Now, those same couples would have many more ART options so the instance of people having only one child because of biological constraints is less. Good news for people who want more children! But it makes having an only a little more unusual than it used to be, I think. Long story short, I know many more people my age (35ish) who ARE onlies than people my age who HAVE onlies.

I haven't commented in a while so apparently I'm making up for it by writing a novel. Sorry.

[MrsHaley]

As an adult only, I was worried that I would have no idea how to raise siblings. What I took away from this chapter is that parents have to be deliberate about managing their kids' interactions so the majority turns out to be positive. We have noticed SUCH a difference in behavior when we take deliberate, focused one-on-one time with our kids (3.5 and 22 months) ... Free-floating, unstructured time together (like, 'I'm going to fold laundry, you two "go play"') always results in meltdowns. Always. Any time one parent can go off with one child (even to the other side of the yard or further up the sidewalk) everyone does better. I used to think this was dysfunctional, but after reading this chapter, I feel more like it's insuring their interactions with each other are mostly positive, or at least neutral (like dinnertime or riding in the car). It's also why 3 kids wouldn't be a good idea for our family. Man-on-man defense works best for us.

Also, @caramama -- I read SWR soon after my youngest was born ... your kids are similar in age to mine and I thought the techniques were geared to older, more self-aware and verbal children so I planned to read it again later (like when they are both school aged). What did you find that applies to our preschool/toddler stage? Which techniques are you using right now?

And @Amy, having/being an only is great! I really liked having my parents all to myself. I think there is more social pressure to have more than one child these days because ART has progressed so much more, so the people who "couldn't" have more than one (or any!) child/ren in the 60's and 70's can now do so more easily. Not that ART is easy, by any means! But I think 30+ years ago, there were just those couples who "couldn't" and so had one or none and that's how it was. Now, those same couples would have many more ART options so the instance of people having only one child because of biological constraints is less. Good news for people who want more children! But it makes having an only a little more unusual than it used to be, I think. Long story short, I know many more people my age (35ish) who ARE onlies than people my age who HAVE onlies.

[MrsHaley]

*sorry for the double post!* Firefox hiccup!

[mo]

This chapter didn't stay with me as long as some of the others for some reason. I have twin boys and I know if someone were to ask me what I wish for most for them it is that I so hope they are friends. I'm not fixated on that because they are twins but more just because they are brothers. My sister and I (a year apart) are not friends. We don't speak to one another now except for maybe once a year and it is really uncomfortable when we do speak.

The take away I got from this chapter is that siblings have a better chance of being/staying friends is if they have an opportunity to learn social skills away from their sibling and the parent guides them to use those same skills on their sibling at home. That the chapter was trying to say that siblings don't learn friendship skill with each other and then apply those out in the world but rather vice versa. That your chances of having close children is if your first child is generally social (not necessarily just an extrovert but also shows that he has empathy, etc.) you have a better shot at having close children.

I too wish the authors of the book had helped with the transition of how to take what they learned from disproving the various studies to how to apply that in a concrete way to every day parenting. That's not to say I didn't enjoyed reading the book.

[mo]

Oh, one more thing to add... watching twins and having a lot of friends with twins (thanks twins club!), I do notice that twins generally learn early on how to share faster than most singletons (not necessarily onlies but non-multiples) so they are learning some skills with each other (with the help of their parents of course since the sharing learning with them has to start pretty much from day one). Not to say that the singleton children don't catch up or share as well eventually but just thought it was worth mentioning.

[caramama]

@MrsHaley - It's so true that the book seems to be for older kids. Right now, I'm trying to lay the groundwork for future negotiation techniques. My 3 yo is very verbal, and so I'm working to teach her the words she should be using, even if the 1 year old can't understand yet. So when she grabs a toy from her brother, I tell her to ask him if he is done and/or if she can have a turn. Or if he puts his mouth on her (she says he's biting her, but he's not actually biting), I tell her to say to him that she doesn't want him biting her. We joke that he can't use his words yet, but we should still use our words. That kind of stuff.

I think the best thing I've been able to implement is the pointing out of what each child wants and asking her to think of something that would work for both of them. Actual example: "Pumpkin, you are having fun playing with the zoo and animals and you have it set up a certain way. Pookie thinks that what you are doing looks fun, and he wants to play with you. Pumpkin, can you think of a way to play with the toys that will be fun for both of you?" "I know! He can play with the lion over here!" She gave him the lion by the fence area, and he happily played next to her with some interaction on her part. It. Was. Awesome! (And when her ideas don't work for him, it's pretty obvious, so then I'm his voice and say that that idea does not work for him. What else can she think of?)

I also use the techniques for the adult-children relations, because I think it's good practice and certainly just as valid.

@mo - "That the chapter was trying to say that siblings don't learn friendship skill with each other and then apply those out in the world but rather vice versa." This was a really interesting point that I took away from the chapter too! I also realized that my nephew and niece twins learned to share a lot earlier than my daughter and the other kids I know.

[hilahil]

@amy - we have a 3.5 year old, and she is going to be an only. and while it still feels like a bittersweet decision, i know in my gut it was the right one for us, and i know she is going to be just fine. for the first two years of her life, when i wasn't barely hanging on by a thread thanks to lack of sleep and just feeling totally out of sorts, i was STRESSING about having another. i always thought we'd have at least two - my whole life i've always pictured having more than one, and DH felt the same: it was just what we were going to do. but EVERY TIME something was tough with our girl, i stressed out doubly because in the back of my head was the thought "how the F am i going to be able to handle this with two?"

when the lightbulb moment happened and i realized we could only have one, it was a revelation. i launched into all kinds of research about only children and thought about it for months before i carefully approached the subject with DH. and when i did and he was like "really? YES! YES! A MILLION TIMES YES!" not only was i so relieved to find out he was on the same page, but i felt like a huge weight had been lifted off of me and of us. that was a big indicator for me that we were making the right choice.

it is bittersweet - i am happy knowing this is what works for our family, and i definitely feel complete in our little family unit, but there are moments when i think about my (adult, mind you - we fought horribly growing up) relationship with my sister and i feel sad that our girl will never have a chance at that. what we are doing and plan to continue to do is to nurture her relationships with her cousins and her friends. and she's been in a daycare (now preschool) that we love since she was 3 months old, so she is socializing with friends her age at least 5 days a week.

so this chapter felt like a relief to me - i was afraid it was going to end up proving something about how crucial siblings are to a child's development. and i know that nothing can replace a sibling relationship - my sister is my best friend now, and my husband gets along great with both of his sisters - i am relieved hearing in one more place that not having siblings is not the end of the world.

@stacy - i'm going to check out that babycenter.com group right now, thanks!

[Cloud]

@Moxie- I wasn't really expecting a how to guide from this book. I had read the race chapter as an excerpt in Newsweek, so knew what to expect.

However, I've been disappointed in that the chapters leave me hanging. I'll read the research and have what (to me, anyway) seems to be the obvious next question, and the authors don't address it. I want to know if there is research on the next question and they just don't have space to include it, or if there just isn't any research.

For instance, when reading the first chapter, on praise, I wondered whether there was research that attempted to take into account the fact that the kids in these studies almost certainly hear "you're smart" type of praise SOMEWHERE, even if the parents and teachers are down-playing that. Heck, my daughter hears that sort of thing from random strangers in the grocery store.

My guess is that it would turn out to be that a mix of types of praise is what kids do best with. I suspect that ALWAYS hearing "you're smart" is bad, but that NEVER hearing it is bad, too.

It seemed like such an obvious next step in the research that I can't imagine the scientists didn't think of it. But it wasn't mentioned at all in the chapter.

In this chapter, I was wondering what research says about actions that parents take early that might set kids up to have a good sibling relationship.

I'm just always wanting more. It is not a fatal flaw of the book, and I still like it. But it is annoying me as I read!

[caramama]

Because I can't keep my mouth (fingers) shut today, I have something off topic:

We're doing and adult-only get together for DC area people in August. Come to my blog and vote for which day and time work best for you!

[Geeks in Rome]

I agree with much of what caramamma said and some others. People looking for a solution should read Siblings Without Rivalry, which also advocated letting kids have special time alone with a parent (and followed more of the rivalry=jealousy thesis NutureShock tries to debunk.)

The thing that did strike me as true in this NS chapter was that 60? 80?% of the fighting is over toys and material stuff.

But there is an element of jealousy and the desire to cause trouble because you know it will get you attention even though it's the "wrong" kind of attention.

I've taught my son to tell me when he feels neglected and wants extra love, and to not beat on his little sister as a way to become the center of some drama. It kind of works, but usually after he's already bonked her and he gets a time-out, starts to cry and say he wants love....

We find separation helps TREMENDOUSLY. Distance does make the heart grow fonder. And it helps them experience life without so much negativity all the time. Kind of like proof that you can have a great day if only you help make it that way.

The other thing I found interesting in NS is that any kind of interaction was a good sign even if it was the older one being bossy. That I have to say made me feel some relief.

I think it is true that ignoring someone is probably the worst kind of insult you can give and that idea of engagement, even if it's being a pain in the ass, is based on some kind of love or regard. My daughter certainly thinks it's great her brother bosses her around and roughhouses with her, which they do pretty safely.

They are 2.5 years apart.

I do not buy his argument however of looking at how the older plays with his friend to see how he will play with the sibling. What it shows is a sliver of your child's personality. People interact differently with others according to their personality.

I am convinced the measure of siblings getting along is based on their personalities. It is impossible to think you can love being with every kind of person out there. Think of someone you know that you do not enjoy being with and now imagine you share the same parents. yuck.

Luckily my kids have very compatible/complimentary personalities but they are young and need to learn raw skills to help them deal with conflict, disagreement and anger.

As far as onlies and social skills. I grew up without siblings when I was about 5 and they are all 11-13 years older. I really grew up as an only. I developed very good social skills because I hated being alone and was so hungry for friendship.

[Erin]

Such a great conversation! I just had a #2, so I'm particularly interested. None of the onlies I know are socially maladjusted. We did meet one only child recently, however, who is, and I think it's because she's home all day with a depressed parent and not socialized at all. She never hangs out with other kids and has no idea how to play with them. Her parents don't help her figure it out (like caramama's example) so it's really hard for her.

I have to say in my opinion the greatest value in having a sibling - beyond the close relationship that can develop - is having another person help absorb the insanity and neurosis of one's parents, to have someone with whom you can roll your eyes (Can you believe mom just did THAT?). This can be incredibly healing/healthy, even if your family isn't super dysfunctional.

[Bonnie]

Wasn't there a special not too long ago on Time magazine about only children? Something like "The Only Child Myth" or something?

OK, found the cover but not the actual article:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20100719,00.html

I'm curious to know what are the "good" age gaps and what are the "harder" age gaps - as we are thinking about having a next one!

[caramama]

@Geeks in Rome - "Think of someone you know that you do not enjoy being with and now imagine you share the same parents. yuck." Whoah! Good point!

@Bonnie - My read of this chapter in Nurture Shock was that the age gaps really did not have any affect on the relationships.

[hedra]

@mo, there's research that shows there is a sensitive period for developing empathy around 8-10 weeks old (!!), and that twins tend to maintain the empathy from that point, where singletons it extincts until the 'normal' developmental age for empathy, because they don't need it (it helps to increase their urgency on demanding attention, because they recognize someone else got something good that they want, which means being able to observe and see that it was good for the other twin, even if the other is the first experiencer of that event).

So twins will always have a different track - longer development of empathy. They will also have some interesting challenges around theory of mind (TOM!), because they tend to have softer boundaries on the idea of 'me' vs 'you' as a result of the early empathy. It is fascinating to watch, having two singletons and twins as well.

The engagement thing makes sense to me, as well as reflecting my childhood to adult relationships with my many sibs.

I think the friend-behavior sounds like a proxy for personality preference, though. People tend to relate to the same level/power/engagement level in similar ways across their lives based on those personality traits, more than a lot else. So the need to control outcomes, or to allow things to flow, or to make everything fair, or to work out a problem logically, all are part of the child, and not part of the relationship - not even to the friend. They just SHOW in the friendship pretty clearly, and with less emotional loading than with the sibling. You're getting a peek at the child's natural, comfortable pattern set. And their skill set, too - so play coaching and so forth can help as ways to build social rules and skills outside the natural preference. It seems obvious to me that this will feed into the sibling dynamic. Certainly my kids fights with each other and ways of handling things are very closely tied to their personality preferences. And I suspect that as they grow up (full adult, out of the house), they'll learn the alternate skillsets (because people tend to do so, eventually), and then be able to apply those. Coaching that awareness and those skills may make a dent in the 'oh, this is a bad dynamic', too. We've seen that with B and G, where mr Extrovert tends to run over mr Introvert, in an effort to get his fill of attention/interaction energy. Mr Introvert would prefer quietly sitting together reading. Having them understand that these are two ways of being and not personal has helped them stay positively engaged on that more. Not always - they're 8 and 12, they're still kids. But Mr G knows that if he is feeling kindly toward Mr B, he can face him, rub his hands or back, talk with him, or play lego, and it will feed his brother's energy in a good way. And Mr B knows he can offer to watch a movie with his brother as a quiet option for togetherness. It helps if they have a clue how to get the other engaged without being overwhelmed, I think.

[lysa]

As the mother of one, I hate the phrase "only child." I also think it's silly to make generalizations about children with no siblings. How silly to "research" it.

[Chive]

Judy Dunn was publishing about impact of siblings on theory of mind from the early 90s. She's still writing about siblings now. As far as I can remember, yes, you learn alot about how to manipulate beliefs and emotions from having a sibling. Kids demonstrated grasp of multiple levels of belief way beyond anything they were doing in a lab in spontaneous situations at home. Not always how you'd want them to, obviously. Knowing just how to wind their sibling up, if necessary by subtle lies, may not be what we were all hoping "socialised" to mean. But it can also mean earlier understanding of ideas like: different people like different things, just because their action made me sad doesn't mean they meant to make me sad etc. Siblings provide opportunities to learn about these things, and for families to explicitly discuss them. These are 15 year old memories I'm dredging up, so excuse the vagueness.

To me it doesn't seem a surprise that the mere existence of a sibling doesn't magically civilise you, or non-existence of one make you feral. It seems obvious that it gives you opportunities to learn stuff about how to relate, but only if your parents facilitate that to some extent, and that there are many other ways to learn those things eg daycare, playgroups, anywhere with other people.

Like Moxie I have a personally salient example to remind me not to generalise about only / one of many. My older brother is still weak on all theory of mind and ways to negotiate that don't involve aggression. He's 40 and only just starting to twig that not everyone who states a different opinion to him is either stupid or doing it to wind him up. I think being way undersupervised with a smaller sibling allowed some very negative ways of interacting with others to become entrenched before he had any experience of interacting with others. Agoraphobic mum, 7 hours from anyone she knew, meant he had NO experience of other kids before I came along.

Oh and as a younger sibling can I ask people to make a distinction between different meanings of "fighting". Verbal squabbling, playing wrestling TOGETHER, and one child being physically intimidated or hit by the other are very different experiences, with different outcomes.

[Anonnynonny]

Any other moms with a large age gap between siblings? I have a 5.5yr gap. Elder is almost 8 and younger is 2.

At first elder was so in love with baby until she started becoming A Real Person, ie, walking, talking and toy taking! Have been really stopped in my tracks sometimes by how vicious he can be - verbally, really evil looks, and some minor physical stuff - it's more threats than anything. I know I need to deal with it but don't have any kind of strategy right now. I just think it's going to get worse now we're entering the terrible twos.

[the milliner]

@stacy, Thanks for the babycenter link. Will def. check it out.

@Moxie, I loved the book too and I agree that a lot of that is because it felt like 'just the facts' and no one was telling me how to raise my kid (for once...be damned sleep books!).

@Amy, I second the discussion about WOH parents help their kids develop strong friendships!

@Hush, I totally agree that being a social kid is more related to temperament than anything else.

@Melba, Reading your post brought back memories of the hijinx my brother and I had when we were growing up (he was the pest-y little brother). I can distinctly remember sitting on top of him, pinning his arms and legs down thinking 'If I really hurt my brother, my mother will kill me'. But man did I really want to hurt him. I think I did that after he put a (plastic) glass of water on the top of my slightly ajar door, so it fell on me when I opened the door. Fun times. Fun times! BTW, he and I get along really great now.

@Cloud, I think I've said this before, but, are we sharing the same brain? You perfectly described why/how I felt some chapters left me hanging. And I also thought very similar things to what you describe about the praise chapter. I totally agree that the mix of types of praise is probably the best answer.

@Geeks in Rome "Think of someone you know that you do not enjoy being with and now imagine you share the same parents. yuck." Ha. That has to be the QOTD. :)

@Erin, I think you're so right about the greatest value in having a sibling. Both to absorb the insanity of your parents, but also someone to remember all the funny/good/tragic things that happened all throughout your life, and in your family life. Who else has known you since day 1? Your parents, yes, but your siblings (in most cases) a lot longer. Reading your post, I teared up a bit because I think this is the primary reason I would want to have a 2nd child. But alas, it's complicated. But thanks for helping me remember that.

@Lysa, I can see why the phrase 'only child' is less than stellar. It implies that the child is missing something. But, why is it silly to "research" it (your quotes, not mine)? No one wants to make generalizations about children. But you could say that about almost any parenting issue. Yes, your child is unique and will not necessarily respond the same way that other children do. But surely there are likely outcomes or results in children with similar backgrounds/lifestyles/etc. For those of us that are on the fence regarding having one child or more (and have not grown up as onlies), researching the only child experience (reading studies, discussions like this one, talking to onlies to hear their own stories) is just a way to help get enough information (some which we will take into consideration, some which we will reject) to make that decision.

[sweetcoalminer]

I still haven't gotten this book off the hold list at the library! I so wish I could participate in this discussion.

I think your comments are interesting and Moxie's summary is interesting, but it gives me a lot of anxiety.

DH and I are onlies (well, I have two half-sibs that live in another country), and both of our moms had siblings they didn't get along with (and both of our dads were onlies), so this is really flying blind for us.

Our kids are 23 months apart and are joined at the hip. They do hurt each other out of frustration daily, but they are the besty-best of best friends right now (almost-3 and almost-5). My youngest is a big talker and can keep up with his sister, and his sister has suddenly started being a little momma to him after years of being jealous/not interested. They bicker but they also play and laugh and enjoy each other.

I've read SWB, but I'd really like to know how to cultivate the joyfulness they have with each other and cut down on the jealousy the older has for the younger. She also gets stuck doing more cleaning up and gets busted for bad behavior more because of her age, which she resents, but they are so protective of each other right now and they spend so much time entertaining each other.

What book should I read? Who has advice for helping them enjoy the good times and diminishing the bad ones? I spend a lot of time walking them through what they should do during conflict, and also walking them through after a conflict what they should have done to not hurt the other one.

[Sharon @proactiveparenting]

I LOVED Siblings w/o Rivalry. For our family it was a huge catalyst for change.

Let me be clear about where I'm coming from with what I'm about to say. I'm a parenting geek at heart; I love research, but don't really base my teaching on "research." Many educators do and I respect that. But that's not my passion as an educator, that’s not where my heart is. I'm interested in the reality families are dealing with. My take on siblings is sort of different, I know no one will be surprised, LOL! Here's my .02.

I believe the feelings that are produced with regard to siblings have a purpose. The more I study families the more I'm seeing the bigger picture on this topic.

As parents we tend to want to put a stop to all the wild play, mean words, feelings of being left out etc. I think, if you explore your deepest feelings about the subject you would find that you, like all parents, are striving for a calmer, more perfect family.

No parent wants his or her sweet child to be in pain, feel left out, or be upset because sis or bro did....

On the other hand we don't want to hear the arguments. We want that noise to stop! As a woman with 2 sons, I had a hard time with all the male roughhousing, to much testosterone for me. I wanted it to stop.

IMHO sibling issues are one of those key places where the legacy of family and values are formed. This is where we teach kindness, sharing, inclusion, love, rules, boundaries, friendship and so much more.

With so much amazing learning going on I don't believe it’s our job as parents to stop sibling issues. (I’m not saying anyone here has said that, I just think it bears mentioning.) I think we want to tame the issues, give the kids tools to empower them to handle things themselves, not simply insist that the children stop it and be nice! Sibling w/o Rivalry has those tools.

Moxie has it right, as usual. Creating things for the children to do together so they're forced to work things out is a better choice. That way there is constant modeling and referencing going on. When you rely on timeout to teach, you remove the opportunity for real time experience. You leave your child feeling resentful and punished, not thinking.

If children are cooking together and become mean, you can say, “Freeze, is this helping or hurting? I don’t like fighting when someone prepares my food, so let’s stop, and work it out and then go back to making dinner.” A real time experience of how to work things out!

Sibling issues are one of the places where we are truly challenged as parents. It’s also where the children are challenged and where most couples are challenged. Those challenges force us to discover who we are, force the children to figure out how they feel about things, it’s a place we get to see another side of our sweet children, and then we’re challenged to decide what to do about all of this. That's a lot of learning going on.

Sibling issues truly force us to look at things we may not otherwise see or want to look at, and that push, from time to time, does indeed force us to grow.

I know this post doesn’t really address point by point what the chapter said. However, as I read what a lot of you said, the chapter left you not knowing what to do with regard to siblings. I hope sharing my opinion has broadened your view of the sibling relationship, and allowed you to gain clarity on the direction you want to head to handle things from now on.

There was a show on many years ago called Sisters. The mother would always say, “The four of you are all you have from cradle to grave, how do you want your relationship to go; I can’t decide that for you!” Such wisdom.

Hope this made sense.

[Erin]

@the milliner - thanks, and you've summed up my point nicely. But it's also worth remembering that sometimes siblings don't even share a bond on that level. My husband and his brother are barely on speaking terms.

@caramama & everyone else talking about SWR - for me the most helpful aspects of the book right now (with a two year old and brand new baby) is just remembering that even though we have multiple children in the hopes that they'll be friends, that we also can't *force* them to be friends. They might not like each other or get along, and there's nothing wrong with that, either. So now I know that the fantasy of siblings-as-best-friends can be damaging when imposed on them single-mindedly.

[Heather]

I haven't read the other comments (I swear I'll go back and read them). I'm an only and I am horribly shy and very panicky with other people. I'm not sure if it has to do with being an only or is due to the fact my parents moved every two years and I was constantly subject to new people.

My 15yo was an only until he was 12 and he is the most social, out going person I know. My 3yo and 1yo constantly fight or hug. Either they are dancing and laughing or beating on each other.

Lastly, is it just me or does anyone else see "Peabo Bryson" every time they see the name Bo Bronson?

[JCL]

Haven't had time to scroll through every comment, but if it hasn't already been mentioned, Time magazine just did a feature on "debunking the only-child myth": http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2002382,00.html (an abridged version of the print article).

[thebigmeow]

My brothers love to fight physically. But they all seem to be the best of friends too.

I am the youngest of 7 and have fought with all of my siblings at some point. We have all since moved out of home and some of us have our own families now, and we don't really fight any more. Argue, yes. Have heated disagreements that may prevent us from speaking to each other for days, yes. But we don't fight fight, or have any nasty bickering etc.

I think what I learned is that its not cool for the parent to take sides unless they were there, and even then it can be dangerous. My Mum always made us figure it out ourselves (under supervision of course) and if we couldn't she wasn't going to declare a 'winner' as such. At the same time, my Mum was a big fan of 'restitution'. If you hurt somebody or did something wrong you didn't just say 'sorry', you made restitution and you asked for forgiveness.

Sure, most of the time we didn't mean it, but after a while it sinks in and you do start to mean it so that when it really matters, you you do it and ask it without hesitation.

I'm not sure how i'm going to teach that to my boys who are nearly 6 and nearly 2.

[Sharon @proactiveparenting]

@thebigmeow Boy does your mom have ti right!

[Elaine]

@ the milliner - we're at the same spot as far as trying to make a decision to have a second child. Much of my thinking is very, very similar to yours. Like you, I've been thinking about my son's life when we are old, need care, and after we are gone.

I'm the youngest of 4, but the oldest 2 were teens when I was born. We all get along relatively well, but all my "having a sibling to grow up with and learn about how to get along" is focused on one sister 2.5 years older than me. For the record, we have nearly always gotten along really, really well.

My parents are gone - dad died 7 years ago and mom just last year. Taking care of them and losing them was incredibly difficult. I spent the last year thinking how grateful I was to have siblings to go through it with me. Right after my mom died I felt certain that we HAD to give our son a sibling so he'd still have a sense of family when DH and I die (knowing that this isn't a guarantee they would actually have a great relationship).

Here is what I know about losing a loved one: Everyone grieves alone. Even though we've all lost the same people and it is nice to call someone that really understands what is was like to wake up in your house on Christmas morning or whatever, losing someone close to you is a solitary journey.

As adults,we four siblings are very loving and try always to be there for one another. We are *very* different people and right now we are all in very big and different life transitions. I've found myself turning to DH or my two BFF's, because they can really help me without the conversation triggering their own grief. When I think about it, these are people I chose to be support people in my life - in certain ways they are a better fit in a pinch than my own siblings.

So while I do count my siblings as some of my biggest blessings in this life, I'm beginning to see just how an adult only child could get through this. At least it makes me hopeful that my son will have put together a life rich with loved ones by the time I die - whether they are siblings or not.

Also I plan to prepare for my own care and pave the way so that no one will be left making hard decisions for me and wonder if they are doing the right thing.

All that being said, I still go back and forth about having another child. But more and more I'm getting the sense that either way we go it will be okay.

@paola "and seeing Italian kids don't leave home till they get married ( and they tend to marry in their thirties) their bickerìng will likely be the death of me" - made me laugh out loud first thing this morning! I needed that.

[Jackie]

I have 3 brothers, who are each 6 years apart from each other (now all 20 and older), and they fight all the time - constantly testing each others' strength, ragging on each other, fighting for dominance, but they're best friends too. Closer than close.

As a girl, it was different with me - the fighting (physical and verbal) stopped when I could no longer enforce bossing them around by physically forcing them to do something. And then we stopped fighting, and became equals, and friends.

[the milliner]

@Elaine, Thanks for your post about your story. You made a really good point about looking at who we turn to for support in our lives. And, like you, I'd identify friends before I would identify my brother (with whom I get along really well).

I think I have a (misguided) sense that your family is there with you no matter what. But the reality is, I have a bunch of cousins (8) from the same family and almost all of them aren't speaking to each other. No guarantees.

You're right in that the focus for my son needs to be developing a life rich with loved ones...in whatever form they take. And I'm right with you preparing everything for my death so he won't have that burden.

Reading your paragraph about the fact that grief is a solitary thing, I realise I just don't want my son to ever feel 'alone'. I realise this is a part of life, and we all feel alone sometimes. I guess it's the protective instinct kicking in.

Anyhow, much more food for thought. Thanks.

[Wilhelmina]

A very difficult subject for me personally. I'm one of those mothers for whom having an only child isn't a choice. It just is. There can't be a second one. In my case the first and only one medically shouldn't have been.

It's called secondary infertility now, and of course can't is relative. If I wanted to try IVF with donor eggs I could. Might well work.I've seen friends go through it and it's a roller-coaster. I want to enjoy being with my daughter without that.

In that sense it's a choice. It's not that I am not grateful for my miracle girl, or that she is somehow now enough.But I was hoping that she could have a sibling.

Now I have a much older, as in 12 years older, sibling and we come from a conflicted and cold family. We were both as my mother said de-facto only children. We're estranged and the friendliest words we've exchanged these last decades was through the lawyer handling my mother's estate.

So nobody knows better than I that you can surely have a sibling and not be close. My mother's long drawn out drama made us very far apart.Gender roles also didn't help.

But I had my soul-mate, my husband for support during that, including the end and beyond, so wasn't alone. And I am okay with being the only person with memories of my childhood and my family history.

When I was born, unexpectedly and not a happy surprise, my mother was older and I was still perceived, well after WWII by older relatives as her born-to-order carer.

Around me single older women often had sole care of aged parents and then a share of the inheritance. They weren't onlies, but alone.

My grandfather early on observed that of course I couldn't marry and leave Mother. Younger relatives actually thought the same thing but did think I could get a good education and a job. The odd vacation........

I left for self-preservation and found that I was not able to have children. With my background I felt it was best to have peace and a forlorn hope.I had a full life. Then the miracle etc. etc.

I wanted a sibling for her because I do know that bad sibling outcomes are because of the parents' relationship than the children themselves. My DH's brother beat him to get out his stress. Again, not a beacon to have off-spring. I believe that there is often a unique love between siblings and I wanted that for her. As well as the years fighting of course, they're part of the unique bond.

When there's talk about onlies Stanley G. Hall comes up, the German-American eugenicist and his views on onlies needing to be eradicated from society.

His views had long European roots. Historically only children belonged to three disenfranchised groups, poor and on public assistance often.

They were only children whose parents were to sick to have more, and too sick to work, or half- or whole orphans who were a burden and the third group were the only and illegitimate children of single women. That stigma still sticks.

The modern version is parents too old to have more, or not able to have more for other medical reasons , working too hard and choosing to have only one for selfish reasons, parents who divorced early on.

One elderly friend of mine was an only child, her father was killed at the end of WWI and she was never allowed to water the plants in class. Too spoilt at home according to the teacher.

A lot of later " scientific" beliefs about only children are that stigma dressed up.So you can see siblings socialising each other as only children not being socialised. Because they can't be. Ergo siblings are a must. Being an only is a bad thing.

Only children are much like older children. They're normal. In fact having undiluted resources growing up and not having to share the inheritance is not a tragedy at all.

Anyone with a living sibling who is asked to imagine themselves to be an only child automatically thinks of a world without their sibling(s) so there's an assumption that there's a lack and grief on the part of an only child which isn't there in reality.

So why was I so keen for a sibling? Probably because I know that despite daddy and mummy being the most supportive cast possible for as long as we live, when we go we take her childhood and past family history with us. She's a very flirtatious type and extroverted so I have hopes she'll find friends and her way. But I hurt at the thought of leaving her alone. Not that I imagine a mother of two or more not doing just that.

And with lives getting longer, and that often being more quantity than quality I fear her having to looks after our aged selves. Although I know for a fact that as a girl she'd be for it anyway.

The best antidote for that is to make as sure as we can that we will be provided for in old age, and set up services to keep independent.I am conscious of keeping all files straight and easy, not building up clutter, that sort of thing.

From reading accounts by only children grown up you get the feeling that as children it often is a good thing, but the stage when parents age and die is not such a good one. Then again, as I can attest, that stage isn't so great necessarily no matter what.

All of this is a tangent on the chapter. Actually to me that chapter was just the stigma in fancy dress. Siblings are much to each other but they don't socialise each other. Society does that for anyone growing up.

It's probably quite clear I didn't much like the book. In fact anyone who is willing to wait for airmail or is in the UK is welcome to my copy. Nice hardback.

[cherylc]

Wilhelmina, that is fascinating. I didn't know any of that history, and it makes perfect sense.

It also makes sense that how a child interacts with a best friend correlates with how they are with a sibling. My kids are seven years apart, and my oldest is very social and empathic with her little brother. But I always have seen that as what I would expect given her personality. The fact that he is her own in a fundamental way makes it more fun, but it doesn't create qualities that she did not already have.

[Sally Kidder Davis]

I'm also blogging about this book this summer. My children wrote the book on sibling rivalry - I'm still in recovery!! Would love your input www.parentwell.com/blog.
Be well,
Sally