So . . . as some of you may know, we're expecting a child in just a few weeks (well, because at the time of this writing I'm pretty sure my only reader is my wife, my entire audience is already well aware of this). Which brings up the topic of baby names.
Baby names are one of the more agonizing decisions pre-child-arrival, especially when I'm involved. I have a habit of suggesting a litany of names, few of which I actually would want to name a child of mine. I'm actually quite insufferable to be around while doing this. But still, people tend to put a lot of thought into the name they give their child. I'm here to tell you that it probably doesn't matter.
Think about it. Your child is going to be who they are regardless of the name that you give them (with an exception described below). It's not as if Bill Gates, Brad Pitt or Denzel Washington were going to be less successful if they were named Mike or Bob or Gary (but perhaps if they were named Pearly, Arm, or Seattle, respectively). Would you be a different person if you were named something else?
And enough with the meanings already - my name means "ever powerful, ever ruler," which I like, but I'm still not ruling anything. Most names mean something nice, or at least pleasant. Dispel the notion that you have to wait to 'meet' the baby before giving him or her a name - anyone who has been around a newborn knows that a) their adult personality has yet to emerge and b) they are all more or less the same for the first few days. Nothing about them is going to suggest a name, other than perhaps Crier, Poopie, or, if you're lucky, Sleepyhead.
Research has shown a correlation between name and socioeconomic status, but it tends to work in the opposite way from what I'm discussing (i.e. certain names are more popular with different socioeconomic classes). So go ahead and just pick a name. It's not going to change anything about who your child becomes. As long as you like the name (because you'll be saying it several thousand times a year) and it isn't easily made fun of (because any name will be made fun of, so you might as well make it challenging for the bullies), it's okay.
Which brings me to the exception - any reasonable name is okay. There may indeed be a negative impact on a kid's life if they have a profoundly weird name. Like "Ninja" or "Pumpkin" or "Thursday" (all from a bad-name poll on http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/237094). No "Apple"s or "Brooklyn"s. Please. And nothing difficult to pronounce, such as "Jakeriyonna" or "Deayahjanique". Be nice to your kid. Take into account your last name - so if your last name is "Tinkletop," avoid Timmy as a first name (from a bad-name blog, http://www.notwithoutmyhandbag.com/babynames/).
There were two things I wanted to address. First, yes Shawna, if I were named Erica it probably would have altered my destiny (though not necessarily, just perhaps made me a tougher fighter).
ReplyDeleteAnd Gill, I stand by my point that the name doesn't make the man (or woman). Do you think you would be a different person if you were named Jennifer, or Vanessa, or something like that? Sure, if you were named Lucretia or Shaqueena or Gertie, but those are 'unusual' names.
Our personalities are a combination of nature and nurture (and more and more research is favouring nature), and neither of those changes because of your name.
Nurture is absolutely influenced by names. People react differently to a "John" than a "Zeke." And people think of themselves differently if they are "Gillian" (with a G) or "Vanessa." The way people react to their own names and to others' names make a big difference in self-identity, and in the way others perceive them. A traditionalist school-teacher is likely to assume that "John" is a smarter student than "Zeke" and grade accordingly when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt, whereas the new-age music teacher will tend to think that Zeke has more natural musical talent than boring old John. I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying this is human nature. More food for thought:
ReplyDeletehttp://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/31960846
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article2167868.ece
I see what you're saying, but do not fully agree. There are a couple of points I would make in response:
ReplyDelete1. Not to get all elitist or anything (actually, I don't have a problem with being elitist, but that's material for another post), but the parents who would name their kids Zeke (or Britney, or Destiny, or Cletus)are, on average, likely to be providers of less-intellectual genes to begin with (referring to my comment about socioeconomics playing a role in name selection, from the book Freakonomics). In other words, Zekes by nature are more likely to be poorer students than Johns.
Looking at the articles you attached links for (thanks!) I still believe that the correlation between name and deed (in this case, crime or success) is spurious - the most likely explanation is that both the name and the eventual behaviour/achievement of the child are largely resulting from parental factors (nature and nuture).
2. The point you make relies on the assumption that there is going to be a uniform response to being treated as though one is dumber, but there can be arguments either way - some kids would be demoralized, and others may use it as motivation.
Back to my central point - would Bill Gates have been as successful if he was Zeke Gates? My answer would be that his parents would have been highly unlikely to name him Zeke Gates, but even if he was, I would think that the other factors affecting his life would have outweighed negative reaction to his name.
I have to agree with Shawna (!). Nurture is absolutely influenced by name -- it's the first and one of the most important things that a parent gives to a child (other than, you know, life) and will influence that child over their lifetime. Not only in how they're treated by teachers, employers, etc, but also in how they're treated by peers. Even among your 'usual' names, there are 'cool' and 'uncool' ones, changing with the times, and it's harder to overcome an 'uncool' name than you may realize (just ask my friend Martha). These extra challenges will definitely affect the child in the long run.
ReplyDeleteBy the same token, many people (myself included) grow up to strongly identify with both their name and qualities thereof (for instance, the slightly more original Gillian-with-a-G than Jillian-with-a-J) and it does shape who they are. It took me a long time to come to terms with my name and with being called Gilligan all the time in school, but now I love it and feel it encompasses who I am. Would I be the same person I am today if I were Zoe, as I almost was? I don't think so.
G.
The other A and G back in the fray, and while I tend to be on the side of the outnumbered, I’m down with The Sisters on this one (and not only because I HAVE to be…)
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I disagree with your thesis, and find the supporting arguments unconvincing. Your central point is that with the exception of profoundly weird names, a person’s first name is “not going to change anything about who your child becomes.” This struck me intuitively as wrong, and the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced.
From my knowledge of psychology I felt certain that there would be studies that examine this issue, i.e. keeping other factors constant, are there significant differences in the way people perceive and respond to different, common, names? A quick google revealed that there are, not surprisingly, many such studies (e.g. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119584649/abstract ((the desirability of women’s first names significantly affects their perceived attractiveness based on photo ratings – I don’t need to prove that we live in the age of online dating, so this IS a significant ‘significant’ finding)), http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/6/755 ((mere LENGTH of a name influences perceptions of success, morality, popularity, cheerfulness, and, for women, warmth)), http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112421477/abstract ((for elementary school students, name desirability is correlated to IQ (!) and school achievement, even when the effects of parents’ ethnicity and income are partialled out)), http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118620035/abstract ((racial bias in job evaluations based on name)), and I really loved http://heldref-publications.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,10;journal,65,82;linkingpublicationresults,1:119938,1 ((at the collegiate level, students with first names commonly deemed unattractive obtain higher grades than those with more attractive names)), http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112421405/abstract ((the popularity of elementary schoolgirls is significantly correlated to the desirability of their first names)), and http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3105466 ((to keep it Kosher)). Considering just the smattering of studies above, and what they tell us about the importance of first names in terms of surviving elementary school, getting good grades, finding a desirable mate, and getting a job, I’d say the ‘first name doesn’t matter’ hypothesis is cooked.
Freakonomics/socioeconomics cannot explain such findings. Rather, it seems that the perceptions of teachers, employers, potential partners, kids in the playground, and even our own identity IS influenced by our seemingly trivial first names. This doesn’t surprise me.
What did surprise me a little was your argument, since it goes against one of your fundamental positions - that people make bad scientists, desperately and erroneously trying to create order and draw simple inferences out of a messy and complicated cosmic soup. Since we are all ‘experts’ at the snap judgment (here I agree with you), it makes sense that people will draw a myriad of invalid inferences based on ostensibly superficial characteristics, such as name. Ironically, given that these inferences have impacts of their own, throwing self-fulfilling prophecies into the mix, these snap judgments become less and less invalid.
Another point to consider is the one you raised about extremely unusual names. It’s not like there are two menus to select from, one filled with John’s and Lisa’s and the other with Ginseed’s and Homerclap’s. Rather, common to uncommon names could be plotted along a continuum. Since you yourself argue that uncommon names DO have an impact on one’s personality and life, it follows (if we believe you) that there will likely be proportional, though decreasing, impacts as one travels from left of center to commonplace names along the continuum. It becomes a question of ‘how much’, not ‘if’.
Continued below…
It’s also important to define your terms – you speak of ‘level of success’ and being the ‘same person’ interchangeably. Is being the 'same person' indicated by a gloss-over assessment of our overall accomplishments and life trajectory, or a more personal, in depth and therefore meaningful estimation of personal identity, emotional life and sense of who we are. The latter is much harder to assess, which is why social scientists such as psychs and economists tend to give it a wide birth in favor of the easily measured income, number of cars and kids, etc. However, those measures are so removed from the true composites of identity as to be effectively meaningless indicators of ‘self’. Ask yourself, is it possible for Denz or Bill to have achieved the SAME objective, measurable outcomes in their lives and STILL be different people, in terms of how they see themselves, how happy they are, etc? Of course it is.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I noted is that you attempt to illustrate your point using massive BLACK SWANS (I know, it’s a tautology, and a slight distortion of the term, but I like the imagery!), like Gates and Denzel. Personally, I’m not convinced that a different name wouldn’t have a led to a different trajectory for these people - who knows, if Bill had been named Brad, maybe he would have been the quarterback in high school and therefore too, ah, busy to become a techy bazzillionaire. Not likely, however my point is, what do these highly exceptional (in terms of ability and/or luck) individuals tell us about the remaining 99.9999999 percent of the population, in terms of impact of first name? Not much is my guess. If we assume that the effect of first names is, on average, a modest one, taking extreme achievers in a variety of fields and saying ‘they would have achieved the same even if they had a different name’ doesn’t advance your argument. And again, that’s assuming we equate ‘achievement’ with ‘self’, which we don’t, or shouldn’t!
Furthermore, consider the impact of random and unknown events – parents in the 50’s in the UK who named their kids the prosaic John, Paul or George (as opposed to Ringo!) were in for a big surprise which no doubt affected these kids as they grew up. Consider further that we all end up forging close bonds and/or extreme likes/dislikes for people with particular names, and those names never mean the same to us afterwards. The valence we attach to names CHANGES throughout our lives, for reasons within and beyond our control, and influences who we are and who we interact with, in ways large and small. Many of these factors are not predictable, but they are still influential in terms of the impact they have on how we, and others, perceive our names, and therefore who and what we become.
Which brings me round to your other central premise, which I also don’t agree with (I was also labeled contrary…), and that is the REASON parents deliberate so much on naming their kid. You imply that it is to shape their destiny. While I’m sure SOME parents do it for this reason (good luck to them, I agree) I don’t believe it is the driving force behind most parental deliberations about names. Rather, I believe the explanation is very simple – we like some names more than others. WHY we like some names and not others is beyond the scope of this book, and luckily is not necessary for the current debate. Suffice to say we have personal preferences for some names, and parents feel, rightly so, that every name has a distinct quality which their child will feel, and which others will respond to.
We have evolved as creatures with extremely fine and well developed senses of aesthetics, and overall sensitivity. Names, like other words, move us. Naturally, we want our children to carry names which, to us, are attractive. For some parents that might mean names which ring of nobility, or warmth, or strength. For others it might mean the name of a great grandparent, or someone famous, or simply a name that has personal meaning to them. But it will be a name with positive valence.
Continued below!!!...
Ok, nearly done...
ReplyDeleteSo, I think your basic premise for the motive is wrong, and even if it wasn’t, your argument against its merit seems untrue, and oversimplifies the rich tapestry of our minds and of life. In fact I would argue that, taking into account the butterfly effect, and for example the impact that a slightly higher or lower sense of self-confidence can have on our actions in particular situations, it becomes clear that naming our children is actually a much more significant determinant of their future than most people would even imagine.
Much of the impact is indeterminable, so yes, it is not worth all the fretting. However not all of it is (indeterminable) because some of it IS predictable – and that’s not why most parent are doing it anyway! So you at once overcomplicate and oversimplify - the motive for most parents is because they LIKE some names more than others, and it is specifically this simple, inherent bias towards liking and disliking ‘things’ that is at the root of the very real, extremely complicated and far reaching effects that having a different name will have on a person, the net effect being far beyond what most parents do, or can, comprehend. IMHO.
p.s. Hi
'wide birth'... Typo, and a most unfortunate pun.
ReplyDeleteWell then! I guess this posting inspired just a bit of comment. Now, a wiser and more humble man would concede the point, but I have never been accused of being either wise or humble.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that different names inspire different perceptions (most of the articles have to do with external perceptions of individuals based on their names) - I don't think I said otherwise originally. I doubt, however, the existince of a systemic effect of these perceptions on the individuals.
To the point regarding the continuum of names from 'normal' to 'weird', I agree there aren't just two buckets in which to place names, but I think that generally distinctions can be drawn between them without a clear cut line. This distinction would also be based on culture, geography, and time.
To the point about aesthetics in names: I think that there exist diminishing returns in debating the aesthetics of names. It seems that there is a search for the 'perfect' name, when no such thing exists, and there are likely several names that are similar in value, and it is the debate around what is the 'right' name that my original post took issue with.
Finally, I disagree with your comment that parents (mostly) do not give a name to help shape the identity of the child. Aesthetics are important, but it is the meaning of the name that forms a large part of the discussion, and the search to find a meaning that fits the child (and who the child will become). Again, this search for the 'right' name depends on the idea that the name is predictive, when it is not.
Great, so we agree! :)) Go Celtics!
ReplyDelete