Another birth order myth debunked

One drawback to AT&T email is that you have to go to Yahoo to sign in. (There must be other places I can read my e-mail; I need to research this.) Yahoo's splash page always has stupid but irresistible stories I must click on.

Today's stupid story is about birth order and romance. According to the story's author, here are the types middle children like me should gravitate to:

Contrary to their reputation as insecure messes (example: Jan Brady), middle kids actually make stable and loyal partners. “One thing you’re not is spoiled,” Dr. Leman says. You probably grew up feeling like you got less attention than your siblings, and that drives you to work for every perk — including a happy relationship. Also in the “positives” category: You’re “a compromiser and negotiator,” Dr. Leman notes, so you’ll give your partner plenty of say in everything from how quickly your relationship progresses to where you go on vacation together. And your romance should be free of daily petty squabbles (middles hate conflict); instead, you try to put others at ease.
Your love challenge: Opening up. Have you ever been told you’re hard to read? “Middle children can be very secretive,” says Dr. Leman. “They got hammered by the first-born and swindled by the baby, so they keep their cards close to their chests.” You’re also not the best communicator when you’re upset. But if you learn to speak up instead of holding your anger in, you’ll have a more harmonious relationship.
Best match: Youngest child. “Middles aren’t as threatened by last-borns as they are by exacting first-borns,” says Dr. Leman, so the odds are good for open communication.

Looking back at my romantic life, almost every male I've dated was a first-born. I've never felt threatened by one. Ian* is the odd one out, being the last of six. Darn Catholics.  But should anyone believe an article that uses characters from The Brady Bunch as examples?