In her article about the gaps in the birth order study, Emily Bazelon writes,

"The kind of tutoring that older siblings do—and that Zajonc thinks lifts their own IQ more than that of their tutees—isn't about working through math worksheets and swimming strokes."

Although this depends on the family, I disagree. Whether they want to or not, older siblings often end up helping younger siblings with homework or athletics. I know I did this for my sister, albeit grudgingly. Whether the exercise raised either of our IQ's is debatable.

But more importantly, Bazelon only tangentially questioned the value of IQ itself. Why are we still measuring IQ, anyway? Although it might be useful to measure children's IQs, it makes no sense to do so for adults, since numerous other studies have shown little correlation between IQ and adult success. (And that holds true for all definitions of adult success: emotional, professional, etc. What differences do exist might stem from the fact that children who are found to have higher IQs are sent into "gifted and talented" programs where the quality of education is better.)

The oddest thing about this study, to me, is that people like Bazelon are taking it so seriously. I sent this article to my younger sister as a joke, she took it in kind. That's exactly how it came up in front of my friends as well. Maybe we all lack competitiveness, but I doubt it. The truth is, most people realize that IQ means almost nothing in the real world. It's a purely academic measure, which may be why academics are still interested in it. I know I'm not.