What do you think?
Rate this book
Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics and Creative Lives
Why do people raised in the same families often differ more dramatically in personality than those from different families? What made Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, and Voltaire uniquely suited to challenge the conventional wisdom of their times? This pioneering inquiry into the significance of birth order answers both these questions with a conceptual boldness that has made critics compare it with the work of Freud and of Darwin himself.
Frank J. Sulloway envisions families as ecosystems in which siblings compete for parental favor by occupying specialized niches. Combing through thousands of biographies in politics, science, and religion, he demonstrates that firstborn children are more likely to identify with authority whereas their younger siblings are predisposed to rise against it. Family dynamics, Sulloway concludes, is a primary engine of historical change. Elegantly written, masterfully researched, Born to Rebel is a grand achievement that has galvanized historians and social scientists and will fascinate anyone who has ever pondered the enigma of human character.
A New York Times Notable Book of the Year
"An important and valuable study that will define research agendas for years to come. It is also hugely fun to read."
--Boston Globe
Frank J. Sulloway envisions families as ecosystems in which siblings compete for parental favor by occupying specialized niches. Combing through thousands of biographies in politics, science, and religion, he demonstrates that firstborn children are more likely to identify with authority whereas their younger siblings are predisposed to rise against it. Family dynamics, Sulloway concludes, is a primary engine of historical change. Elegantly written, masterfully researched, Born to Rebel is a grand achievement that has galvanized historians and social scientists and will fascinate anyone who has ever pondered the enigma of human character.
A New York Times Notable Book of the Year
"An important and valuable study that will define research agendas for years to come. It is also hugely fun to read."
--Boston Globe
672 pages, Paperback
First published October 8, 1996
38 people are currently reading
2116 people want to read
About the author
Frank J. Sulloway
14 books15 followersFrank J. Sulloway is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Psychology, and also a member of the Institute of Personality and Social Research, at the University of California, Berkeley. He has a Ph.D. in the history of science from Harvard University (1978) and is a former MacArthur Fellow (1984-1989).
Dr. Sulloway has been the recipient of fellowships from the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton, New Jersey), the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science (University of California, Berkeley), the National Science Foundation, the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (Stanford, California). In addition, Dr. Sulloway is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association for Psychological Science, and the Linnean Society of London, and is a recipient of the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement (1997). He lives in Berkeley, California.
Dr. Sulloway has been the recipient of fellowships from the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton, New Jersey), the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science (University of California, Berkeley), the National Science Foundation, the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (Stanford, California). In addition, Dr. Sulloway is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association for Psychological Science, and the Linnean Society of London, and is a recipient of the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement (1997). He lives in Berkeley, California.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
August 7, 2012
I found this interesting and provocative. Others that I have recommended it to have tended not to like it if they are eldests, and not see the point if they have no siblings.
I revisited it in March, 2000, as the first book that I recommended for the book group. It was unanimously disliked, by what turned out to be a group of all first-borns (with one member having an unusual birth-order situation). I remember one member in particular who made a point of stridently stating that she hadn't finished it, because there was nothing worthwhile in it. As the major thesis of the book is around acceptance of novelty, and what types of new opinions are attractive, she as good as proved it.
I revisited it in March, 2000, as the first book that I recommended for the book group. It was unanimously disliked, by what turned out to be a group of all first-borns (with one member having an unusual birth-order situation). I remember one member in particular who made a point of stridently stating that she hadn't finished it, because there was nothing worthwhile in it. As the major thesis of the book is around acceptance of novelty, and what types of new opinions are attractive, she as good as proved it.
February 26, 2009
confesion: I skimmed much of later half this book. I felt as if the author distorted historical facts to fit his theories, and once deducing such, I started losing interest. Plus, I've been drinking a lot of wine in the evenings and perhaps this was too dry a read for me. Also, hello? Correlation does not imply caustion, people.
February 8, 2009
This is a book that attracted a great deal of attention when it first came out. I'd co-authored a related book, "Birth Order and Political Behavior," at about the same time. Needless to say, we didn't sell many copies compared to Frank Sulloway's book! Also, since I am a firstborn and they come across as pretty conservative and resistant to change, I cringed reading of his thesis! He states clearly his basic thesis (Page 53): "Most innovations in science, especially radical ones, have been initiated and championed by laterborns. Firstborns tend to reject new ideas, especially when the innovation appears to upset long-accepted principles." As a firstborn, I am, of course, instantly skeptical!
Sulloway brings a wide array of evidence to bear on his thesis. As some observers have noted, there is some controversy with the data that he gathered, but I am still impressed with the scope of his work.
His book is provocative, raises many questions, and ends up being--at least in my opinion--worth taking a look at.
Sulloway brings a wide array of evidence to bear on his thesis. As some observers have noted, there is some controversy with the data that he gathered, but I am still impressed with the scope of his work.
His book is provocative, raises many questions, and ends up being--at least in my opinion--worth taking a look at.
June 19, 2017
To start this review, "Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives" was an entertaining read despite its weaknesses. One of the major weaknesses is that Sulloway focuses on the details that support his thesis and doesn't do enough to identify that data that does not support it. I can also see how first borns may not love what they read in this book, as Sulloway favors later borns (the title "Born to Rebel" points to how later borns are more likely to embrace revolutionary and unpopular ideas). I am a first born and did not get offended or defensive throughout this book, but I can see why some would.
Sulloway's basic thesis is that birth order explains many of the major events throughout human history. According to his hypothesis, first borns are more likely to be conservative and to favor the status quo while later borns are more likely to support change. Sulloway focuses on scientific revolutions and historical revolutions to test this hypothesis. He has compiled databases of biographical information on historical and scientific figures to test the predictive value of birth order. Birth order turns out to be predictive of supporting ideas and movements that threaten the status quo. In the family, first borns are able to occupy the niche of their choice and typically identify more with parental authority. Later borns need to find their own niches to occupy, so they are more likely to be more open to experience than first borns. This openness to experience makes them more likely to embrace revolutionary change. Some problems emerge with this theory when we find that many first borns have been revolutionary figures (Che Guevara was a prime example). Sulloway tries to reconcile this apparent inconsistency by saying that first borns with later born parents may be predisposed to be revolutionary; the first borns identify with their parents, so parents with revolutionary thinking are likely to impart this thinking to their first born children.
"Born to Rebel" is an entertaining, yet flawed, work. I question some of Sulloway's interpretations and possible data-massaging, but it is thought-provoking. To expand on my accusation of data-massaging, Sulloway sometimes divides particular events into a "before given date" and "after given date." This causes these events to be counted twice in his samples, which I imagine must be affecting the final outcomes. As for the book itself, I think birth order can help us to reconcile the stark differences between siblings that we often identify. Sulloway's theses make some sense from a Darwinian perspective. If you're interested in birth order theory, I would recommend this book, but do not come into this expecting to get all the answers.
Sulloway's basic thesis is that birth order explains many of the major events throughout human history. According to his hypothesis, first borns are more likely to be conservative and to favor the status quo while later borns are more likely to support change. Sulloway focuses on scientific revolutions and historical revolutions to test this hypothesis. He has compiled databases of biographical information on historical and scientific figures to test the predictive value of birth order. Birth order turns out to be predictive of supporting ideas and movements that threaten the status quo. In the family, first borns are able to occupy the niche of their choice and typically identify more with parental authority. Later borns need to find their own niches to occupy, so they are more likely to be more open to experience than first borns. This openness to experience makes them more likely to embrace revolutionary change. Some problems emerge with this theory when we find that many first borns have been revolutionary figures (Che Guevara was a prime example). Sulloway tries to reconcile this apparent inconsistency by saying that first borns with later born parents may be predisposed to be revolutionary; the first borns identify with their parents, so parents with revolutionary thinking are likely to impart this thinking to their first born children.
"Born to Rebel" is an entertaining, yet flawed, work. I question some of Sulloway's interpretations and possible data-massaging, but it is thought-provoking. To expand on my accusation of data-massaging, Sulloway sometimes divides particular events into a "before given date" and "after given date." This causes these events to be counted twice in his samples, which I imagine must be affecting the final outcomes. As for the book itself, I think birth order can help us to reconcile the stark differences between siblings that we often identify. Sulloway's theses make some sense from a Darwinian perspective. If you're interested in birth order theory, I would recommend this book, but do not come into this expecting to get all the answers.
August 17, 2025
کتاب را در سالهای قبل در دوران کارشناسی مطالعه کرده بودم.
در مورد آن اینگونه مینویسم که در فضای فکری مسلط بر دنیای روانشناسی که از رویکرد روانپویشی به نسبت فاصله گرفته بود، در سال ۱۹۹۶، فرانک سالووی این کتاب را منتشر کرد و در آن استدلالی تکاملی برای تأثیرات ترتیب تولد بر شخصیت ارائه داد.
او نوشت که خواهر و برادرها برای منبع مهم و اغلب کمیاب محبت و توجه والدین، با یکدیگر رقابت میکنند. موفقیت کودکان در این رقابت، راهبردهایی را منعکس میکند که بر شخصیت آنها تأثیر میگذارد و جایگاه ترتیب تولد، این صفات شخصیت راهبردی را پیشبینی میکند.
سالووی در تأیید نظریه آلفرد آدلر اظهار داشت که فرزندان اول احتمالاً پیشرفتگرا، مضطرب و همنوا میشوند، در حالی که فرزندان بعدی بیشتر مخاطرهجو، تجربهپذیر و مبتکر هستند و وضع موجود را رد میکنند. در مجموع، آنها باید روشی برای جلب محبت والدین خود پیدا کنند که با روش همخواهر و برادرهای بزرگتر متفاوت باشد.
در واقع، تحلیل تاریخی سالووی نشان داد که دانشمندانی که فرزند دوم بودند، به احتمال بسیار بیشتری نظریههای جدید رادیکال را که برای اولین بار مطرح میشدند، میپذیرفتند. فرزندان اول به احتمال بیشتری به نظریههای متعارفی که قبلاً جا افتادهاند، میچسبند.
گرچه از سالووی به خاطر روش تحقیق او انتقاد شده است، او دادههای زندگینامهای را در مورد افراد تاریخی گردآوری کرد. با این حال، کتاب او جان تازهای به پژوهش ترتیب تولد داد و از زمان انتشار آن، تحقیقات بهتری برای آزمودن پیشبینیهای آلفرد آدلر انجام شدهاند.
در مجموع، طرحهای پژوهشی بینخانوادگی که در آن افراد خانوادههای مختلف مقایسه میشوند، نظریه آدلر را تأیید نمیکنند؛ شاید به این دلیل که در این نوع تحقیقات کنترل کردن چندین متغیر که خانوادهها را از هم متمایز میکنند، دشوار است.
در طرحهای پژوهش درونخانواده، از پاسخدهندهها خواسته میشود خود را با خواهر و برادرهای خویش مقایسه کنند و این تحقیقات نظریه آدلر را تأیید میکنند.
در مورد آن اینگونه مینویسم که در فضای فکری مسلط بر دنیای روانشناسی که از رویکرد روانپویشی به نسبت فاصله گرفته بود، در سال ۱۹۹۶، فرانک سالووی این کتاب را منتشر کرد و در آن استدلالی تکاملی برای تأثیرات ترتیب تولد بر شخصیت ارائه داد.
او نوشت که خواهر و برادرها برای منبع مهم و اغلب کمیاب محبت و توجه والدین، با یکدیگر رقابت میکنند. موفقیت کودکان در این رقابت، راهبردهایی را منعکس میکند که بر شخصیت آنها تأثیر میگذارد و جایگاه ترتیب تولد، این صفات شخصیت راهبردی را پیشبینی میکند.
سالووی در تأیید نظریه آلفرد آدلر اظهار داشت که فرزندان اول احتمالاً پیشرفتگرا، مضطرب و همنوا میشوند، در حالی که فرزندان بعدی بیشتر مخاطرهجو، تجربهپذیر و مبتکر هستند و وضع موجود را رد میکنند. در مجموع، آنها باید روشی برای جلب محبت والدین خود پیدا کنند که با روش همخواهر و برادرهای بزرگتر متفاوت باشد.
در واقع، تحلیل تاریخی سالووی نشان داد که دانشمندانی که فرزند دوم بودند، به احتمال بسیار بیشتری نظریههای جدید رادیکال را که برای اولین بار مطرح میشدند، میپذیرفتند. فرزندان اول به احتمال بیشتری به نظریههای متعارفی که قبلاً جا افتادهاند، میچسبند.
گرچه از سالووی به خاطر روش تحقیق او انتقاد شده است، او دادههای زندگینامهای را در مورد افراد تاریخی گردآوری کرد. با این حال، کتاب او جان تازهای به پژوهش ترتیب تولد داد و از زمان انتشار آن، تحقیقات بهتری برای آزمودن پیشبینیهای آلفرد آدلر انجام شدهاند.
در مجموع، طرحهای پژوهشی بینخانوادگی که در آن افراد خانوادههای مختلف مقایسه میشوند، نظریه آدلر را تأیید نمیکنند؛ شاید به این دلیل که در این نوع تحقیقات کنترل کردن چندین متغیر که خانوادهها را از هم متمایز میکنند، دشوار است.
در طرحهای پژوهش درونخانواده، از پاسخدهندهها خواسته میشود خود را با خواهر و برادرهای خویش مقایسه کنند و این تحقیقات نظریه آدلر را تأیید میکنند.
February 3, 2019
A solid, well-researched study of individual differences within families. The book helps to explain observed behaviors.
May 12, 2009
Very detailed research on birth order, including an array of variables that effect a person's tendency to be open to new ideas, such as was Darwin and others. Later born children are usually more open and stray from conventional thinking than first born children who cling to traditional values, etc.
June 26, 2007
Sounds interesting, right? I stopped reading when he compared oldest children to Hitler!
January 28, 2008
This book helped me explain the oddity that is my siblings. How and why we act the way we do.
November 29, 2019
I only signed out this book for part 2 so I am done with the book. I had time and finished part 2 :) And am thereby done with it. Was insightful but at times a bit too formal
October 20, 2025
相信所有父母，都會常常納罕，為何手足之間總因小故便終日吵嘴？為何子女總是認為父母偏心（特別是小孩）？子女的出生順序，對他們的人格有什麼影響？這種對人格的影響，會反映在人類的歷史裡嗎？
《天生反骨：家庭內的演化戰爭》是本介紹「出生順序論」的演化心理學著作，它為上面這些問題點出有趣的見解。
出生順序論建基在達爾文的演化論。我們一般對「公平」分配資源的理解，就是將資源均分；但這種「公平」的基礎，其實建基在社會契約；但基因的競爭從來都不依契約：我和我自己的基因相似度為1，和我手足的相似度卻只有一半（0.5）；換句話說，若依「基因公平性」來分配資源，我該得到2/3，而非一半。小孩為什麼會因半件蛋糕，而始終爭論不休？小孩未受過社會教化的洗禮，他們的反應往往就源自基因的「內建程式」；而當兩個小孩都自覺該擁有資源的2/3，一份資源就永遠不可能調和這種衝突——說穿了，手足衝突的根源其實是基因競爭的結果。
按作者法蘭克·薩洛威博士的解釋，大略而言，排行老大的人，維繫父母的疼愛的最佳策略，就是更認同父母，服從他們的權威。比起他們的弟妹，老大享有體格、頭腦上較聰明的優勢，結果他們普遍比弟妹更自信，也同時會嘗試控弟妹。由於頭生子已佔據了簡易直接的家庭利基，後生子為免直接衝突，發展不同的利基就是最佳策略；比起頭生子，後生子在個性上較不拘泥傳統，勇於冒險，質疑權威。
本書最有趣的地方，是作者利用了大量的歷史數據，製成模型，並以模型測試自己的理論，解釋歷史人物的生平事蹟。例如當年充滿爭議的演化論在普遍得到科學社群的支持之前，其壓倒性的支持者都是反叛的後生子；相反頭生子卻普遍支持創世論；其他性質類似的歷史事件，如宗教改革、法國大革命⋯⋯似乎一樣可以看到同樣的模式：激進改革或理論的熱烈支持者都屬後生子，頭生子卻壓倒性都是保守派，支持維持現狀或保守理論。
那麼，對於外向反叛的頭生子，或者保守的後生子這些例外，作者法蘭克又有什麼解釋？原來頭生子要成頭生子，首先家庭要為頭生子提供起碼的資源，讓他建立身為頭生子的自信；不然這名頭生子只具名份，其角色卻和資源相對稀缺的後生��無異。至於保守的後生子，其原因可能是長子逝世或從缺：結果這些次生子實際是肩負著頭生子的角色，自然會發展出頭生子的人格。可以說，模型雖有極多的例外情況，但作者總能自圓其說，不斷為模型補丁，豐富模型的解釋力。
話雖如此，我雖然認同出生順序論��分有趣，但它能不能作為反映現實的模型，我卻十分保留。一個理論模型能解釋歷史事例，當然有它的價值；但模型的最重要功能，卻從來都不應是提供某種「馬後炮」的事後補完，而是預測的能力。科學之所以是科學，在於它既具解釋，亦有預測未來的能力。出生順序論本身就以歷史數據建成，在解釋歷史方面它顯然無出其右，但它預測未來的準確度又有多高？知道我的子女排生和家庭背景之後，它能預言我的孩子對人工智能的接受程度嗎？這些顯然都是一個問號。
對於例外狀況的解釋，它們或許能拯救理論於既倒，卻有增加理論框架彈性的副作用。當理論的彈性如此大，任何結果都能納入其解釋，就會變得完全不能「證偽」，成為某種自說自話的封閉系統。
或許更大的問題是作者雄心勃勃，試圖用出生順序論的角度，去分析法國大革命、宗教改革等等的歷史事件。這些分析當然是十分有趣的故事，但解釋的因果鏈拉得如此長遠，難道不會稀釋出生順序的效應？有沒有邏輯滑坡之嫌？況且人類的行為如此詭譎多變，我們真能相信掌握幾十個變數再加出生順序，便能解讀歷史當中的風雲色變？我自己就十分懷疑。
比起其他理論，或許出生順序論要面對更大的「時代壓力」。在已開發國家，普遍的家庭要麼不生子女，要麼只有一個子女；縱有多於一個子女的情況，資源分配亦算相當公平（依社會契約），那家庭利基而致人格趨異的結果，豈非越來越不明顯？
總的來說，出生順序論有堅實的演化基礎，在解釋手足衝突、親子衝突的情況，都顯示出它的價值；但只要因果鏈一拉長，它的解釋力就讓人十分懷疑，更遑論說預測的能力。《天生反骨》是本有趣的小書，若果有興趣看看科學家、文學家的反叛經歷，應該不會失望。
《天生反骨》或許未能像作者所願那樣預測歷史的走向，但它確實讓我們重新審視家庭這個微觀世界裡的進化邏輯——那股從搖籃延伸到革命的反叛衝動。
《天生反骨：家庭內的演化戰爭》是本介紹「出生順序論」的演化心理學著作，它為上面這些問題點出有趣的見解。
出生順序論建基在達爾文的演化論。我們一般對「公平」分配資源的理解，就是將資源均分；但這種「公平」的基礎，其實建基在社會契約；但基因的競爭從來都不依契約：我和我自己的基因相似度為1，和我手足的相似度卻只有一半（0.5）；換句話說，若依「基因公平性」來分配資源，我該得到2/3，而非一半。小孩為什麼會因半件蛋糕，而始終爭論不休？小孩未受過社會教化的洗禮，他們的反應往往就源自基因的「內建程式」；而當兩個小孩都自覺該擁有資源的2/3，一份資源就永遠不可能調和這種衝突——說穿了，手足衝突的根源其實是基因競爭的結果。
按作者法蘭克·薩洛威博士的解釋，大略而言，排行老大的人，維繫父母的疼愛的最佳策略，就是更認同父母，服從他們的權威。比起他們的弟妹，老大享有體格、頭腦上較聰明的優勢，結果他們普遍比弟妹更自信，也同時會嘗試控弟妹。由於頭生子已佔據了簡易直接的家庭利基，後生子為免直接衝突，發展不同的利基就是最佳策略；比起頭生子，後生子在個性上較不拘泥傳統，勇於冒險，質疑權威。
本書最有趣的地方，是作者利用了大量的歷史數據，製成模型，並以模型測試自己的理論，解釋歷史人物的生平事蹟。例如當年充滿爭議的演化論在普遍得到科學社群的支持之前，其壓倒性的支持者都是反叛的後生子；相反頭生子卻普遍支持創世論；其他性質類似的歷史事件，如宗教改革、法國大革命⋯⋯似乎一樣可以看到同樣的模式：激進改革或理論的熱烈支持者都屬後生子，頭生子卻壓倒性都是保守派，支持維持現狀或保守理論。
那麼，對於外向反叛的頭生子，或者保守的後生子這些例外，作者法蘭克又有什麼解釋？原來頭生子要成頭生子，首先家庭要為頭生子提供起碼的資源，讓他建立身為頭生子的自信；不然這名頭生子只具名份，其角色卻和資源相對稀缺的後生��無異。至於保守的後生子，其原因可能是長子逝世或從缺：結果這些次生子實際是肩負著頭生子的角色，自然會發展出頭生子的人格。可以說，模型雖有極多的例外情況，但作者總能自圓其說，不斷為模型補丁，豐富模型的解釋力。
話雖如此，我雖然認同出生順序論��分有趣，但它能不能作為反映現實的模型，我卻十分保留。一個理論模型能解釋歷史事例，當然有它的價值；但模型的最重要功能，卻從來都不應是提供某種「馬後炮」的事後補完，而是預測的能力。科學之所以是科學，在於它既具解釋，亦有預測未來的能力。出生順序論本身就以歷史數據建成，在解釋歷史方面它顯然無出其右，但它預測未來的準確度又有多高？知道我的子女排生和家庭背景之後，它能預言我的孩子對人工智能的接受程度嗎？這些顯然都是一個問號。
對於例外狀況的解釋，它們或許能拯救理論於既倒，卻有增加理論框架彈性的副作用。當理論的彈性如此大，任何結果都能納入其解釋，就會變得完全不能「證偽」，成為某種自說自話的封閉系統。
或許更大的問題是作者雄心勃勃，試圖用出生順序論的角度，去分析法國大革命、宗教改革等等的歷史事件。這些分析當然是十分有趣的故事，但解釋的因果鏈拉得如此長遠，難道不會稀釋出生順序的效應？有沒有邏輯滑坡之嫌？況且人類的行為如此詭譎多變，我們真能相信掌握幾十個變數再加出生順序，便能解讀歷史當中的風雲色變？我自己就十分懷疑。
比起其他理論，或許出生順序論要面對更大的「時代壓力」。在已開發國家，普遍的家庭要麼不生子女，要麼只有一個子女；縱有多於一個子女的情況，資源分配亦算相當公平（依社會契約），那家庭利基而致人格趨異的結果，豈非越來越不明顯？
總的來說，出生順序論有堅實的演化基礎，在解釋手足衝突、親子衝突的情況，都顯示出它的價值；但只要因果鏈一拉長，它的解釋力就讓人十分懷疑，更遑論說預測的能力。《天生反骨》是本有趣的小書，若果有興趣看看科學家、文學家的反叛經歷，應該不會失望。
《天生反骨》或許未能像作者所願那樣預測歷史的走向，但它確實讓我們重新審視家庭這個微觀世界裡的進化邏輯——那股從搖籃延伸到革命的反叛衝動。
March 16, 2025
*Born to Rebel* basically confirms what every eldest sibling already knows—we were the test subjects, the responsible ones, and the unofficial third parent. Meanwhile, the youngest got away with *everything,* and the middle child somehow turned their survival instincts into a social superpower. It’s a fascinating read if you want scientific proof that your childhood grievances were, in fact, valid.
February 19, 2020
Read this book if you have a second or third child and would like to understand their behaviour on the back of an exceptionally well-researched theory that looks at evolution within the family & establishes some pretty mind boggling conclusions about late-borns.
February 6, 2021
Interesting argument and historical facts. Either way I got pretty tired of reading the same idea over and over again with not very convincing arguments. Definitely a book and theory to think about.
March 26, 2022
I read a good chunk of this book back in 2017, and I can tell you that it absolutely fascinated me at that time. The tremendous concept that simple birth order can affect your life preferences struck me as a very inventive hypothesis. Along with the additional bit of info, that those younger children are more likely to 'rebel' compared to older brothers and sisters. Admittedly I've read bits and pieces of Pinker's works, Sulloway's (this book), as well as Dawkins, and I can tell you that while these men may be very inventive in select fields when they try to branch out they don't seem to get very far. What I mean simply is, that there are a lot of questions about their books that are never truly answered. Statistics can be misleading. I remember learning that in my Statistics 101 class. Mind you I am no Harvard graduate or Cambridge graduate, but the doubts raised about certain books also intrigues me. Why should we always believe what we read, because the author has excelled at Harvard, Princeton, or Cambridge? That's simply the argument from the authority fallacy, and it rarely ever checks out.
Sulloway in particular knows how to write without coming off as condescending. Those are all positives no doubt. I am giving this book a three-star rating as it was well-written, and since its main thesis stayed with me throughout the years. I might have questioned it and looked away from it, but it stuck with me. I plan on re-reading it sometime in the future, and maybe when I do I will change my rating to 4 stars instead of 3.
Sulloway in particular knows how to write without coming off as condescending. Those are all positives no doubt. I am giving this book a three-star rating as it was well-written, and since its main thesis stayed with me throughout the years. I might have questioned it and looked away from it, but it stuck with me. I plan on re-reading it sometime in the future, and maybe when I do I will change my rating to 4 stars instead of 3.
Want to read
November 8, 2008～名人推薦～
* 「薩洛威完成了社會科學史上最權威、最重要的一本書。」－【普立茲獎得主】艾德華‧威爾森
* 「每隔一段時間就會出現一本改變整個學術界，甚至所有人的思考方式的書。《天生反骨》就是這麼一本書！」－【哈佛大學動物學阿加西斯講座榮譽教授】厄斯特‧梅耶
* 「薩洛威以家庭關係的演化觀點橫掃人類歷史！他的書會改變我們思考過去、未來和自我的方式。我相信他的書會留下跟佛洛伊德、達爾文同樣長遠的影響。」－《永不演化的女人》作者莎拉‧芭拉茀‧哈蒂
* 「《天生反骨》是傑作中的傑作！它的寫作匠心獨具、引人入勝，像一本好小說。我相信這是應用演化論新角度看歷史的第一部成功之作！」－【哈佛大學科學使聖湯瑪士講座榮譽教授】伯納德‧柯亨
* 「花了四分之一個世紀，這部精彩、深入、發人深省、可讀性高的著作，被傳誦的時間絕對不只廿五年。不論頭生子女或後生子女，每個人都會既驚且喜遞叢書中發現許多關於自己的細節。－【哥倫比亞大學榮譽教授】羅勃‧莫頓
* 「《天生反骨》是無與倫比的知識成就，既震撼又切身！它提供一個觀察人類歷史與日常生活的嶄新觀點。」－《道德動物》作者羅勃‧賴特
* 「薩洛威完成了社會科學史上最權威、最重要的一本書。」－【普立茲獎得主】艾德華‧威爾森
* 「每隔一段時間就會出現一本改變整個學術界，甚至所有人的思考方式的書。《天生反骨》就是這麼一本書！」－【哈佛大學動物學阿加西斯講座榮譽教授】厄斯特‧梅耶
* 「薩洛威以家庭關係的演化觀點橫掃人類歷史！他的書會改變我們思考過去、未來和自我的方式。我相信他的書會留下跟佛洛伊德、達爾文同樣長遠的影響。」－《永不演化的女人》作者莎拉‧芭拉茀‧哈蒂
* 「《天生反骨》是傑作中的傑作！它的寫作匠心獨具、引人入勝，像一本好小說。我相信這是應用演化論新角度看歷史的第一部成功之作！」－【哈佛大學科學使聖湯瑪士講座榮譽教授】伯納德‧柯亨
* 「花了四分之一個世紀，這部精彩、深入、發人深省、可讀性高的著作，被傳誦的時間絕對不只廿五年。不論頭生子女或後生子女，每個人都會既驚且喜遞叢書中發現許多關於自己的細節。－【哥倫比亞大學榮譽教授】羅勃‧莫頓
* 「《天生反骨》是無與倫比的知識成就，既震撼又切身！它提供一個觀察人類歷史與日常生活的嶄新觀點。」－《道德動物》作者羅勃‧賴特
January 6, 2013
Wonderful information. The book is made up of theories, explanations and case studies. That may account for some of the length since many individual cases are explained, but it still seemed to go on too long. This book would keep its insight but be a bit more paletable if were to be edited down a bit.
Read
June 25, 2010This summer I read Born to Rebel, a study of birth order in history and science by MIT scholar Frank Sulloway, because Saul Levmore told me (and anyone who would listen) that it is his favorite book. At the risk of sounding like a sycophant, I loved it too. It changed the way I look at the world, how I interact with my children, and what I think about myself. - Todd Henderson
June 29, 2007
Folks don't talk about birth order that often, so this was a fascinating look at how meaningful it really is. There are many examples of historical figures (like Darwin)and how their birth order probably factored in how they lived their lives.
February 24, 2016
An average book on the effects of birth order on a given person's life. Being in the field, I found much of it to be old information. But it would probably be very interesting for a person who is not as familiar with the concepts.
B/B = BORROW
B/B = BORROW
April 12, 2008
The premise of ths book is that all political change is a product of sibling rivalry. The French revolution is the model.
It is an interesting book, even though all this birth order theory is not as prevelant as it once was.
It is an interesting book, even though all this birth order theory is not as prevelant as it once was.
November 25, 2008
Although the book doesn't really apply to only childs (such as myself), it looks at historical figures in a scientific light, illuminating how personality develops and how culture can be shaped by personality.
December 31, 2010
Ever wonder why you're kids are giving you such a hard time? They're supposed to!
An invaluable guide for parents and teachers to help you understand the hard-wiring all children have to grow-up and break-away and how to reconcile this nature in contemporary society.
An invaluable guide for parents and teachers to help you understand the hard-wiring all children have to grow-up and break-away and how to reconcile this nature in contemporary society.
August 3, 2011
Definitely the most interesting new book I've read in the last year. It explains a heck of a lot of things and also makes me wonder about a whole bunch of other stuff. It's one I plan on rereading a number of times.
November 4, 2007
Who would think Darwin, history, and social science could come together and tell such an amazing story?
December 7, 2008
research paper
November 12, 2008
Provides insight around birth order, personality and family relationships.
January 21, 2009
Anyone interested in epistemology and its empirical determinants (oh the potential contradiction!) should check out this book
February 4, 2009
An entertaining read with an interesting premise, not entirely supported by the data the book provides (particularly about women and birth order vs. the gender of their older sibling.)
May 27, 2009
if you have brothers and sisters.....you should read this....
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews