Angus and Connie are so different.
Connie was so fast to learn everything when she was a baby, she was rolling just before she turned three months old, she was crawling by five miles months she old, she was holding her own bottle at seven and a half months and cruising at eight.
Angus on the other hand, is seven and a half months old now and so far he has mastered rolling over, which he started at about five months.
I think he’s just lazy. He looks at Connie and thinks to himself, she’s done it already, so why do I need to bother?
Why can’t you compare them? It’s the only experience I have. I’m not going to turn round to him when he’s older and say “You know what, Connie was a much smarter baby than you, must still be true now”
I’m not daft. I know that all babies learn things in their own time. And it makes no difference to me at all. I just find the comparison interesting.
So as long as you’re not going to be telling them years down the line how one was better than the other when they were babies (and let’s be fair, once they’re older, who’s really going to remember which of them mastered sitting up quickest) then compare away I say!
Also, I mean obviously, don’t tell them one is better than the other when they’re older. No child wants to hear your sister is better at reading than you, your brother had a better report card than you. Encourage them. What I’m trying to say is comparing them is fine, you can’t not compare them. Just keep it to yourself. Even when they’re in their thirties with families of their own.