Baby number 2 (age difference)

Is it really a debate? I was always taught that genetics and environment are [b'>both[/b'> factors (genetics responsible for your "potential" to learn but the right environment (nurture) neccesary to actually fully reach that potential. As long as there are people out there making blanket statements like the one we've just read (and "breastfed babies are more intelligent" which is another one I like to chuckle at) without bringing into account the far more important and relevant factors of socio-economic climate and demographic, then there is a "debate", even if it's not exactly scientific.

Mine's 2.5 years apart. I like their age gap. I wanted it to be a maximum of 3 years as we sort of wanted to get the baby thing/sleepless night etc thing out of the way in one go. I have heard if the gap is too big, it is way too much of a shock to the system to start all over again with No. 2 just when you have completed every stage imaginable with No. 1. Actually, regardless of the gap, its always a shock to the system ;) but I am glad I did it that way...Soon they will be similar ages to be able to do long haul flights with them, go to Disney land etc. I like the fact that they will experience things together but that the gap was not so small that I was left traumatized with both in nappies at the same time

New research suggests that it is better for the first child's intelligence if there are more than 2 years between them. http://nz.lifestyle.yahoo.com/practical-parenting/pregnancy-birth/article/-/12125752/is-this-proof-of-the-perfect-age-gap/ hmmm... they'd need to determine whether "intelligence" was down to nature or nurture first, which is an ongoing debate! I'm on the "nature" side of the fence on that point. Is it really a debate? I was always taught that genetics and environment are [b'>both[/b'> factors (genetics responsible for your "potential" to learn but the right environment (nurture) neccesary to actually fully reach that potential. Whenever you point out a star, read your child a story, show them how a puzzle fits together, teach them how to tie their shoes you are actually creating synaptic connections and [b'>physically, permanently [u'>growing[/u'>[/b'> their brain, so yes, nurture is def a factor and one-on-one mummy/daddy time during the first few years is super important. From that article [i'>They believe that the difference in achievement is a result of the time and resources parents invest in one child before the arrival of a subsequent child. "The two-year gap is significant because the early years are the most important in a child's development - so dividing your time when the child is one is more harmful than dividing it when the child is already in school," says Buckles. Children with an age gap of less than two years watch more television, and are read to less, than those with a larger age gap. In addition, the difference in academic scores was most pronounced in families with a lower household income, leading Buckles to speculate that those with higher incomes can spend more money on their children to compensate for the reduced amount of time they can spend with each.[/i'> So in short, the point made by the study is with a smaller gap you are [b'>more likely[/b'> to have less time to spend with each child individually. But like all non-scientific articles on scientific studies, I'm sure (I hope) its a very simplified view of the study itself. Do twins then have lower IQs?, do only children have higher IQs, what about the developmental learning that comes from time spent with a sibling? (emotional, behavioral, social IQ), what if you have home-help, or extended family to share the load etc etc, what about when kids are in daycare anyway. I'm sure there are pros and cons to all scenarios. With DS having just hit 16 months and us only just now starting to consider ttc again a big part of me wishes we had started trying to conceive another one when he was 12 months (as planned) as I do think that the bigger the gap the harder it is for them to relate as children but truthfully I just wasn't ready, DS wasn't sleeping through, I was/am still breastfeeding and didn't want to impact that etc etc. There will always be individual factors to consider. A 2-3 year gap does seem quite common, a lot of my friends back home seem to be trying for smaller gaps, (<2years) in part to minimize the amount of time mum spends out of the workforce (the mums who are opting to stay at home or work part time until their kids are in school) but the fact that the same people are on average older mums and dads also seems to impact on how quickly they manage to conceive, so bigger gaps (>3 years) are common. I have noticed cultural differences in gaps here though, with a lot of my friends from certain regions opting for 4-5 year gaps so as to spend all their time on each child. I personally feel if I waited that long I'd be too reluctant to go back to that nappy changing, night waking baby stage all over again.

most people have a 2 year gap woah... sweeeeeeeeeping statement of fact there, BB! Most people I know in the UK of my generation seem to have a 3 year gap, unless they have more... or less. Or much more, or much less. I have a lot of friends with children and can't actually think of any with exactly a 2 yr gap. ;)

most people have a 2 year gap woah... sweeeeeeeeeping statement of fact there, BB! Most people I know in the UK of my generation seem to have a 3 year gap, unless they have more... or less.

New research suggests that it is better for the first child's intelligence if there are more than 2 years between them. http://nz.lifestyle.yahoo.com/practical-parenting/pregnancy-birth/article/-/12125752/is-this-proof-of-the-perfect-age-gap/ hmmm... they'd need to determine whether "intelligence" was down to nature or nurture first, which is an ongoing debate! I'm on the "nature" side of the fence on that point. Me too HAK. Far out...the 'research' some people use to justify their existence just blows me away sometimes. What ridiculous generalisations.

most people have a 2 year gap

New research suggests that it is better for the first child's intelligence if there are more than 2 years between them. http://nz.lifestyle.yahoo.com/practical-parenting/pregnancy-birth/article/-/12125752/is-this-proof-of-the-perfect-age-gap/ hmmm... they'd need to determine whether "intelligence" was down to nature or nurture first, which is an ongoing debate! I'm on the "nature" side of the fence on that point.

New research suggests that it is better for the first child's intelligence if there are more than 2 years between them. http://nz.lifestyle.yahoo.com/practical-parenting/pregnancy-birth/article/-/12125752/is-this-proof-of-the-perfect-age-gap/

My # 1 and 2 have 15 months age difference. Yep, at times it was hectic ( though #1 was a GREAT toddler), that hectic time was over relatively soon ( plus, I made sure they both went to bed and napped at same times so I always had a decent break) We then had an almost 8 year break before #3 came along. I loved this age difference! The older 2 were almost 8 and 9 and they were so helpful. It was like have another 4 hands! As they were home full-time with me, #3 was by far the easiest to look after...lol Then another 4/12 years later, #4 made his appearance. So we now have a 14 yr old, almost 13 yr old, 5 yr old and a 11 month old, so have kids in different stages. The 4 year gap is also lovely. Each time we have had a new arrival there has been a short adjustment period for us all, but overall the transition form 1-4 kids has been fine....I'd do it again :-) For me, there is no perfect age gap, as they all have their pros and cons and what suits some families wont suit another. And, sometimes the decision about age gaps cant be predicted too well.

You're so right...there's no ideal age difference. :) Because I was 35 when my first was born and we wanted three before I turned 40, a time limit determined the gaps! My first two are 20 months apart and the first year after the younger one was born is a blur of exhaustion. After that first year, it became a whole lot easier. Once she was mobile, could communicate somewhat and actively play with/beside her older brother, they became best little buddies. Now they are 6 and 4.5 and still best friends...most of the time. ;) We had 2.5 yrs before my third child was born and that, for us, was a FAR more sensible gap. :D My husband is one of three, all three years apart. He thinks the bigger age gap stopped him and his siblings from being really close as children. They've only gotten to know each other as adults. The three of them are chalk & cheese in temperament though, so regardless of age gap I don't think they were ever going to be mates! ;)

Mine are 21 months apart and although they are lovely together, I wish I had stuck to my original plan (haha - plan... yeah, whatever!) and hat 3 years difference because it was properly hardcore. I really feel that I just haven't had any kind of break - just as DD was no longer a baby, I was pg and then had a newborn with a toddler entering her terrible twos... and now that she's 4 and finally come out of her tantrumming, DS is starting. I spent nearly 4 consecutive years either pg or breastfeeding and my pelvic floor and pelvis is shot... but they are truly lovely and I wouldn't swap them for the world (97% of the time)! I've got friends who've got 3 or 3.5 years between #1 and #2 and they just seem so much more relaxed and managed to have proper quality time with #1 becoming properly independent before launching into getting pg again. I'm slightly jealous really. I've also got friends who were so keen to have even less than a year between children and I honestly think they are mad. They'll have no time to really enjoy #1's milestones and you know, there really is no rush.

I can`t really help you as I will only will present no2 (26months) to no1 on sunday..