I would like to clarify, though, that having multiples who learn sociability through home-play doesn't negate the possibility of singletons learning sociability through community-play. The differential environmental factor may contribute to the assimilation process by age. Certainly, play-dates are incredible and beneficial to baby and mommy. (However, I'd like to point out that while this practice is prevalent in certain socioeconomic backgrounds, it's not as ubiquitous on all levels and in all communities.) Daycare, preschool, even church and family get-togethers are great for the singleton to make friends and experience the harrowing social world up close and personal without having to share it 24/7 with another sibling. But, inevitably when it comes to sociability the multiple may always have the advantage at the key point of sociability being a skill promoted by group interaction. Multiples might get a bit more practice.

But I'd have to say that some extent these posts put a damper on discussion from any angle. Certainly a singletone family is right for some and others crave more children under their wing. That being the case, arguing the pros and cons of more or less children seems incredibly biased from anyone's stand-point, all having their own agendas, and the majority still leaning toward the at lest 2 party kid caboodle.

Unlike parents with two or more children, parents of one are pressured to have more children--"give him a playmate" so he will be socially well-adjusted, will interact well with others. What I intended with this post was to reassure parents of one that singletons do not suffer socially if they are without a sibling or two. I am certainly not arguing that one child is a better family size than a two or more child family. I welcome arguments or factors that dispute the research findings regarding sociability.

Play dates are not essential, they were an example, an opportunity. School and/or playing with children next door or living in your apartment building achieve the same results.