Quote - So, I don't think The Owl meant birth order as some sort of a mystical law of the universe...lol. But instead more of a conditioning that parents do unconsciouosly. Most oldest childern were expected to look after the younger ones and more times than not turn out slightly more responsible. Wouldn't you agree with that?

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree completely.  From what you said about raising your own, it is just as likely the young mother across the street I am now making up did exactly the opposite - being new, she was lax with her first child not out of laziness but out of ignorance - things were not done or corrected simply because she either never thought of it or did not know how.  With her second kid, she knew better and that one was raised like a cadet in a military academy.

Now assume one of yours and one of hers are cannonized as saints and the others are on the FBI's Top Most Wanted list.

Are the good adults the ones who were the good kids, or did something happen to make one rebel while the bad kid "saw the light" however you want to interpret that?  There are simply too many variables for birth order to be seriously considered as a major factor, especially when, apparently, the author of the book admits that role reversals happen if . . .

It is just like saying "I was born on a Tuesday, therefore I will grow up to eat bugs, slap my sister, and pee in the flower pot.  Unless there was an R in the month when I was born, in which case I will not do any of those things."

---

It TheOwl, or anyone else, wants to incorporate the ideas in the referenced book into their personal philosophy, they are welcome to do so - I, however, shall not, and have no intrest in reading a book that may be part self-help and part academic discussion regarding a topic I cannot take seriously or use as a reference for my own studies.  To each their own, and this is not for me. :)