Kelly's blog on his interests

Brits are more likely to use a top name than Americans

2011-08-07T13:35:00.003-05:00

Recently I got to playing around and doing some comparisons between the US and UK stats (links are at the bottom of the post). To make the numbers comparable, I multiplied the UK (in this case the England + Wales) stats by the ratio of the US's population to that of the aforementioned areas. As it turns out the ratio falls between about 5.5 and 6; when using my figuring to base the statements below they are approximations (if I could use the actual birth rate stats rather than that of the whole population the ratio would probably be a bit higher since if I'm correct the US birth rate is higher than the UK one).

A difference I noticed between the two countries is that the top names make up a lower proportion of births in the US than across the pond (in other words there is more "name conformity" in the UK). For example, the percentage of babies given the top name is higher in England/Wales than in America (with the boys having a larger effect). When comparing the complete top 10 lists similar results show up.

Taking the 2010 stats here's the respective names and numbers for the top 10 (raw numbers, not adjusted like I did to make true comparisons):

US Top 10:
Jacob 21,875 Isabella 22,731
Ethan 17,866 Sophia 20,477
Michael 17,133 Emma 17,179
Jayden 17,030 Olivia 16,860
William 16,870 Ava 15,300
Alexander 16,634 Emily 14,172
Noah 16,281 Abigail 14,124
Daniel 15,679 Madison 13,070
Aiden 15,403 Chloe 11,656
Anthony 15,364 Mia 10,541

England/Wales Top 10:
Oliver 8,427 Olivia 5,279
Jack 7,031 Sophie 4,469
Harry 6,862 Emily 4,310
Alfie 5,478 Lily 4,257
Charlie 5,410 Amelia 4,227
Thomas 5,307 Jessica 4,102
William 5,256 Ruby 3,961
Joshua 5,217 Chloe 3,883
George 4,542 Grace 3,722
James 4,351 Evie 3,469

US stats: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames/
UK stats: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-49222 (updated link)

Nicknames vs. formal names, part 3

2011-05-17T08:40:00.000-05:00

A few months ago I came up with a hypothesis that in the U.S. the preference for nicknames or short names as full names vs. longer names as the given name varies across the saeculum, with the former increasing during 4Ts and peaking during 1Ts, with the latter increasing during 2Ts and peaking during 3Ts. I found more evidence supporting this; if you look back to the earliest years covered by the SSA list you'll see that nicknames as official names as well as "shorter" official names were fairly big during the 1880s and 1890s, fell off during the 1900s and remained low during the 1910s and 1920s, went back up during the 1930s and remained up until the late 1970s, went back down again around 1980 or so and has stayed down until very recently. If you compare the SSA list of 2010 to that of 2007 (before the start of the Great Recession) you'll see that although the nicknamey and shorter names are still far less popular than they are in the U.K. they are overall on the rise (the four names I used for the comparison are Ellie, Finn, Lucy, and Max; all four increased during that time). To be fair, Finn does have a strong pop-culture influence right now (Glee); even so Finn is on its way up in comparison to some of its "longer" forms such as Finnegan (which remained nearly steady between 2009 and 2010). My prediction: Although I don't think the more extreme "nicknames as full names" that are currently popular in the U.K. (such as Alfie or Millie) will catch on in the U.S. I think the phobia of nicknames or short names as official names is on the wane with more "just Finns" or "just Lucys" rather than superflously going for a longer form on the birth certificate for the sake of formality.

Now for the question that many name enthusiasts have been wondering: Why has the U.K. loved the nickname trend in recent years while the U.S. has not, when it's the U.S. that is traditionally less formal in its lifestyle? Well, the Strauss and Howe saeculum may provide some insight here as well. During First Turning (High) eras (such as the 1950s or 1870s) community bonding is up while individualism is down; during Third Turning (Unraveling) eras (such as the 1990s-2000s or 1910s-1920s) community bonding is down while individualism is up. At the present point in history (though it's not always been the case) the U.S. and U.K. are closely aligned in their saeculae (in other words approximately in the same Turning era). During High eras, desire to bond in with the prevailing culture persists; at these times we have less formal names ruling in the U.S. and more formal names ruling in the U.K. During Unraveling eras, desire to have a name that marks one as an individual persists. In the U.K. this means scaling down from the formal prevailing culture and using informal names, while in the U.S. this means scaling up from the prevailing informal culture and using more formal names (notice how during this era Americans were obsessed with "becoming and looking rich" with McMansions, SUVs, etc., and likewise tended to use baby names that present such an image; in addition this was one of the few times in recent history that American schools were seriously considering school uniforms [which are common in the U.K. all along] but the talk has since largely subsided). I do not have any official statistics on U.K. names available other than those from recent years, but from what others have said I've been able to extrapolate that Britain follows a cycle on name formailty that is about equal in length (~80 years or so) but runs opposite to that of America's.

Once again, remember that this post is a generalization of trends.

The changing baby name trends from 2010

2011-05-08T11:29:00.004-05:00

Last Thursday, as they usually do right before Mother's Day, the U.S. SSA released their baby name data for 2010. One pattern that many are noticing is that the pattern of girls tending to get more trendy/unusual names than boys is diminishing or in some cases reversing. If you do the math from the percentages given on the SSA lists (don't use the actual numbers when comparing between years since that enters the birthrate into question), you will see that the percentages of girls being given a Top 10 name is going back up after an overall downward trend over the past several decades while the percentages of boys with a Top 10 name continues to go down. Also, if you take a look at Laura Wattenberg's NameVoyager and select to see either all of the girl or boy name data (but not both together) you'll see that the percentage of boys given a name that is less common than #1,000 continues to go up while it's basically flat (between 2009 and 2010) for girls.

What's the force behind the changing trends? Well, much of it falls on the rising generation of under-30 new parents: the Millennials (or Generation Y if you prefer). Although sexism in naming and other gender issues is certainly still there, for this new generation it is less so. From my experience, we're (I'm a member of this generation) less uptight about our boys standing up to traditional expectations. This leads to the continuing diversification of the boy name pool, as well as a slowing down of the "unisex name plight" to the girls in spite of the co-opting of such names continuing (the latter I've discussed before on my blog).

Although the Millennials may be more diversified in their name choices, from my predictions they will overall also be more "traditional" than Boomers or Xers were. This does not necessarily mean that they will go back to the stalwarts of their parents' day, but rather than going more "tryndee" they will likely go on routes like the "Exotic Traditionals" and the "Antique Revivals" (using terms from Wattenberg's book) that are becoming fashionable and go for those names that have a history but aren't saturated in usage to their ears. In cases like the Irish/Celtic trend, it will likely continue but we'll probably see more "authentic" Irish names rather than the "faux-Irish" names like Colleen and Erin (i.e. ones that aren't traditionally used as names in Ireland) that were common in the past.

Remember that with much I've posted this is a generalization. (If you have your own thoughts on the general trends they're certainly welcome though.)

I'm back!

2011-05-08T10:36:00.000-05:00

If you've been following my blog, you may have noticed that I closed it to the public for awhile. I did this because I had made several posts discussing some political trends I have observed, and I decided that I'd like to keep such posts separate from those in my general blog. I deleted those posts from this blog, and my plan is to transfer them to a separate blog. I figured this was a good time to re-open my blog given the increase in traffic from the baby name fans since the new SSA list for 2010 was recently released.

Happy (nonexistent) Birthday, Ryan Laura Bush!

2011-02-27T16:59:00.005-06:00

I can't post this on her actual birthday since it doesn't exist, but the U.S.'s previous President has another daughter that a lot of us don't know about. Her name is Ryan Laura Bush (her middle name is after her mother, which she frequently uses like many other female Ryans so people don't constantly assume that she's a he). What's really unique is the day she was born: February 30, 1984. February 30 is also a special day for George W. Bush for this reason.

As for what Ryan Bush is up to, she's planning on running to be the first member of Congress from the Millennial generation (1982-sometime in the early-mid 20-aughts) in 2012.

If you haven't realized, this whole post is made-up (hence the February 30 birthday, based on Dubya's blunder in that video). I made it up as a joke to this thread on Nameberry when one of the members gave out "Natal Flower Names" based on the birthday of the person in question (if the link doesn't take you to the right post on the page, it's the third from the bottom; the first post on the next page is the OP of that thread's response to my joke). If it were real, that might explain the rise in female Ryans born during Bush 43's administration.

Seasons and phases of name popularity

2011-02-17T15:44:00.004-06:00

In describing the rising and falling popularity of names, I've used the terms for the seasons to describe the four phases of a name's popularity fluctuation. (If you've spent any amount of time on my blog you know that Strauss and Howe do the same with the "seasons" of history, although their works are off-topic in this blog post.)

Spring - The name is increasing in popularity, and often falls into what is called on Nameberry the "hipster" phase when it is often well-liked by name enthusiasts and other similarly-minded people. These names may still seem a bit "out-there" for the general population.

Summer - The name is in its period of peak popularity and loses the "hipster" feel when it becomes most mainstream. In cases of really popular names, those not often around babies or young children may not realize the name's hotness but those that are do (this is what has inspired many of the titles in Pamela Redmond Satran and Linda Rosenkrantz's Beyond... series; in the late 1980s they published Beyond Jennifer and Jason, a decade later added "Madison and Montana" to the title, and now they have Beyond Ava and Aiden).

Autumn - The name is decreasing in popularity. Although these names are usually perfectly respectable to the general population, typically they are no longer considered "fashionable" and may sound dated. Names popular in the eras in which the current parents and grandparents were born that no longer are often in this season.

Winter - The name is steadily low in popularity. Names which were mainstream two seasons ago may sound old-fashioned to may people, but going for one of these names may actually put your child's name ahead of the curve if it "survives" the winter and doesn't become stuck in fashion limbo (think Bertha and Gertrude). Often names that don't fall as low are more likely to come back (for example Emma after being very popular circa 1880 never fell out of the top 500 and came back to near the top of the list in the 2000s, whereas the previous examples are all long out of the top 1,000).

A way you can determine when a particular name is or was in each season is to use a feature that graphs the name over time by the percentage of births (some good ones are The Baby Name Wizard's NameVoyager and Behind the Name's top popularity lists/graphs). Naturally, these discussions discuss the names using U.S. stats; internationally they may be different.

For example, if you were to show the aforementioned Emma, it's previous summer was in the 1880s-1890s, it had a long autumn lasting until the early 1960s, wintered for a little over 20 years until the mid-1980s when it started rising again into spring, and reached its current summer in the early 2000s.

For a boy's example, let's use one of my current favorites: Oliver. This one up until its winter followed a similar trajectory to Emma (although Oliver's peak was nowhere as high) with its height in the latter part of the 19th Century and then declining until the early 1960s. Oliver wintered longer though, not showing a major rising until the second half of the 1990s and still in its spring phase.

For a name on a different part of the cycle, I'll use an example of what Satran & Rosenkrantz call a "mom name": Amy. When the stats began in 1880, it was either late summer or early autumn being on its way down until the late 1920s or so, was at its low for about 20 years or so after, then had a 20-year or so spring, then its late 60s to mid-80s heyday, and then started to decline. In recent years the decline is leveling off a little bit; it's too soon to tell whether the name is now still in the autumn decline or now in winter again (the 2010 stats when they come out may help give a clue).

A hypothesis on why the U.S. did not go metric

2010-12-29T17:50:00.001-06:00

In spite of an attempt to convert the United States to the metric system of measurements in the 1970s and 1980s, the nation is one of the few in the world that still have not adopted metric into everyday use. Many of the other English-speaking countries did a conversion around the same time or a few years earlier (e.g. Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, etc.) and in most cases have been more successful. Some say that the U.S. culture is stubborn to change, but I have another possible reason: the generational constellation in place at the time of the conversion attempt.

As Strauss and Howe have observed, the generations in the U.S. run a few years ahead of most of the other countries mentioned (except for maybe Canada), and the American attempt at conversion was a few years behind. What significance does that have? In the U.S., if you find someone who is strongly anti-metric there's a good chance they're a Boomer. For some reason Idealist/Prophet generations (of which the Boomers are one) appear to me to be the most resistant for learning new ways. You may think it is simply a function of age, but when the initial push to convert the U.S. to metric in the mid-1970s was made most of the legislators and others in power were members of the G.I. and Silent generations. By that time there were many Boomers well into young adulthood, who probably contributed to the stalling of the metric conversion effort.

In the other countries I mentioned, the push to metric was made a few years earlier. That along with most of them being a little behind the Americans on their generations meant that a change-resistant (in this arena; they are certainly change-inducing culturally though) Prophet generation had not yet exerted as a major force which enabled metric conversion to progress further.

So when can we expect a realistic chance at the U.S. going metric? A good guess is once the Boomers lose their majority in government control and we have less change-resistant Xers, Millennials, and Homelanders to help push us in the metric direction.

Here is the Wikipedia article on metrication (and the source for the metrication facts mentioned).

Is Rory the new Adrian?

2010-12-17T08:18:00.008-06:00

What do the names Adrian and Rory have in common? Both are boy's names that for a period of time had a feminine pop-culture influence (for Adrian it was Rocky, for Rory it was Gilmore Girls) but remained predominately masculine according to the statistics.

For some people of the generation that grew up when the Rocky movies were popular that made Adrian sound a bit feminine for a boy, but now that those doing the naming are mostly those that grew up after those movies came out Adrian is now comfortably masculine according to the SSA stats (and ranked higher last year for boys than it ever has before). Even during the Rocky years, the boys still had the majority with the name Adrian (for the most part even so when figuring in the sound-alike feminine form Adrienne).

A generation later another name that sounds feminine from a pop-culture influence to some but is still more common for boys is Rory. The TV show Gilmore Girls had a female character with the (nick)name Rory, and thus made the name more visible for a girl (although there were female Rorys previously such as Rory Kennedy and Pamela Redmond Satran's daughter). Although the aforementioned show made Rory crack into the top 1,000 for girls, it still ranks lower than it does for boys; now that Gilmore Girls is off the air it looks like barring another influential female Rory the name will come out ahead for boys in the long term.

About teenage "name nerds" and generations

2010-12-15T19:39:00.003-06:00

Recently Nameberry had a blog post on teenagers (past and present) and their opinions on names. If you look around on many name forums you will see that quite a few of the frequent posters are teenagers (especially teenage girls; guys of any age like me are usually in the minority by a large margin). The teenagers' opinions also provide a clue at what kinds of names might be popular 10-20 years or so from now when they are having kids of their own.

These teenage name enthusiasts also provide a clue at generational changes with name styles. Since they are younger than most of the actual parents or expecting parents their seeking names, at certain times their style may clash some with the older members. Right now not as much, since today's teenagers are later Millennials with most of the twenty-somethings being earlier Millennials (expecting parents mostly being divided between Millennials and Gen-Xers). When I was a teenager myself (about a decade or so ago) it was different on the forums of the time; the division was between early Millennial teenagers and (mostly) Xers of child-bearing age. However, that also clued those who are "name nerds" at the upcoming trends. It may get interesting again in a few years when the oldest Homelanders (Strauss and Howe's tentative name for the new Adaptive/Artist generation) start joining the forums and giving their opinions.

If you look at some of the old articles on S&H's http://www.lifecourse.com site from the late 90s/early 00s, you will see how they try to separate the reality in teenage culture (the early Millennials) from what those a bit older (the late Xers) often protrayed it. Right now that "clash" is not as big since it is between waves of the same generation rather than those on different sides of a generational boundary. A decade or so from now it will once again be between those a few years apart but in different generations (Homelander teenagers vs. later Millennial twenty-somethings). As I said in the above paragraph, a similar pattern appears in the teenager vs. young adult name discussions.

"Boy Named Sue" and disruption study: Flaws I found

2010-11-21T20:55:00.006-06:00

I'm back again critiquing another name-related study I suspect may be biased and/or flawed. The study at this link supposedly finds that boys with "feminine" names are more likely to be disruptive or perform worse academically once they hit a certain grade. Here's some issues I found with how it was done:

1. The study was limited to one school district (the district wasn't specified). Why weren't multiple school districts across the country with varying racial and socioeconomic compositions studied?

2. Only students in grades 3, 4, 5, and 6 were studied. What would the results at higher grades be (such as once these kids reach high school)?

3. The grade organization between levels of schools varies between school districts. What would the results be for a district where middle school or junior high starts with grade 7? What about a school district in which elementary school goes through grade 8?

Boy playing for a field hockey team?

2010-11-17T14:37:00.004-06:00

At the link below is a story about a boy who is playing on a field hockey team whose other members are all girls. Some people claim that it makes the team unfair, while others (like me) think that if girls can play on boy's teams, that boys should be allowed to play on girl's teams. Read my comment on the page shown below (#1,929) to learn about how (in general) I think there's a generation gap going on between Boomers and Millennials over the former's double standards and the latter's quest for true equality:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/Male-star-leads-field-hockey-team-Is-he-an-unfa?urn=highschool-285871&cp=78

Circumcision rates and the changing practices in raising boys

2010-11-17T09:52:00.006-06:00

A few weeks ago I posted about how the maximum "generation gap" between parents and their parents (the child in question's grandparents) varies by gender and across the saeculum. The maximum gap when it comes to raising boys usually comes during a Fourth Turning (e.g. the current era); for girls it's at the opposite point of the saeculum, during a Second Turning (e.g. the late 1960s and 1970s).

I found another piece of evidence that demonstrates my theory on Fourth Turnings being the era when raising boys is most called into question: the circumcision rate. Before I go any further, I want to point out a couple of things. First, some of the links in the rest of this blog post may lead to a page or site with pictures of penises. However, those pictures are there for educational purposes only. Second, I'll mention my own viewpoint on the issue: I am strongly against RIC (routine infant circumcision) for medical reasons. On the issue of religious circumcision (done mostly by Jews and Muslims), I'll remain silent on that for now. If you'd like to learn more about what I think with regards to circumcision, this site pretty much sums it up: http://www.circumstitions.com/. Luckily, my mother is strongly against it too; mainly because when she had her first-born (a girl) she heard another baby screaming real loudly and the doctor said that he was being circumcised. At that point, she decided that she would never inflict that on any sons she had; thus I am proudly intact myself. (I prefer to use the term "intact" rather than "uncircumcised" since the latter term describes the unaltered penis in terms of the altered one.)

As shown with the graphs at this page, the rate began to increase sharply in the 1930s (i.e. the last Fourth Turning) to a peak during the Generation X birth years. Since then it has gone back down, to a rate of a bit over 50% a few years ago and now with some sources saying that less than 1 out of 3 new boys are being cut. (All these statistics are for the U.S., which has been one of the world's champions in non-religious circumcisions; in fact over 75% of the world's men are intact.) Since the steepest part of both the rise (when medical professionals began to encourage it) and the fall (when more people are learning about the benefits of having a foreskin) occur/occurred during Fourth Turning eras this further shows that those eras are the most likely to have boy-raising practices called into question.

Third post about how unusual boy's names (don't really) lead to criminals

2010-11-13T18:54:00.006-06:00

Last year I made two blog posts on a "study" that claimed that unusual names for boys lead to them growing up to be criminals. Here is a better discussion I found on the research.

Three more points from me that show that their study doesn't really hold water, especially for a parent in the present times making a naming decision:

1. Continuing the generational points, today's most popular names - for both boys and girls - comprise a much smaller percentage of births than when most of those criminals in that study were born. This means that having an unusual name is more "normal" than back then, and thus how the study claimed that they made such children feel less accepted really doesn't apply for today's babies and children (if anything the opposite is probably true).

2. The sample size of a prison where the researchers would have obtained their stats on criminals' names is typically much smaller than a typical official popularity list based on births over a year's time. What this does is make an uncommon name that a single criminal (or two) happens to bear appear artificially high on the prison's name popularity list compared to where it would appear with a larger pool of individuals, and ignores the many more uncommon names that do not show up on any criminals in the sample.

3. The guys who performed the study are named David and Daniel; since they have very common names they probably introduced some bias into that study (since they would probably want to make themselves feel better by saying that common names are best). I don't know if this is actually true or not, but I strongly suspect it.

Different Thanksgivings in 1939, Different Easters in 2019?

2010-11-08T13:02:00.004-06:00

In 1939 due to the Great Depression and trying to boost Christmas sales Thanksgiving was moved from its (at the time) usual date of the last Thursday of November to a week earlier (that year the holiday would’ve fell as late as it could on November 30 and the change made by FDR moved it up a week to the 23rd). The move encountered opposition, leading to some parts of the country observing Thanksgiving a week apart from others (and the coining of the term “Franksgiving”).

A saeculum later in 2019 another holiday may end up being observed on different dates not just throughout the country but even within a town or neighborhood. This time the holiday in question is Easter, and it would be due to action on the various denominations of Christianity rather than the government as was the case for Thanksgiving 80 years earlier. Actually, it already frequently happens that most Western churches (Catholic and Protestant) calculate Easter with a different set of rules than most Orthodox ones do (the latter uses the old method from the Julian calendar while the former ones use the more astronomically accurate Gregorian calendar rules). However, the Orthodox in the U.S. are but a small minority so there isn’t much confusion (no more so than those from other minority religions). There is a movement between the various branches of Christianity to unify the celebration of Easter though, and the most common proposal is to abandon the formulas currently in use and determine the date astronomically (using the actual full moon rather than the approximated ones currently in use and the actual vernal equinox rather than the fixed one of March 21). More specifically, under the proposal Easter would be the Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox using Jerusalem meridian time for all calculations. Since the Gregorian formula is very close to astronomical reality variances for the Western churches would come only occasionally (as opposed to the Julian formula which frequently puts Easter for Orthodox churches a week later due to lunar inaccuracy and sometimes four or five weeks later due to solar inaccuracy). The next year that Western churches would see a difference with the change would be 2019, with the Easter under the current rules coming on April 21 but astronomically coming on March 24 (the difference due to the actual full moon in March coming after the equinox but the full moon under the church formula coming before March 21).

Each denomination will have to decide if and when to adopt the changes, and since there are so many Protestant denominations in the U.S. it could very well turn out in 2019 that some might have Easter on the “traditional” April 21 date while others might celebrate it on the revised date of March 24. Furthermore, jurisdictions where public holidays are scheduled around Easter (such as Good Friday and/or Easter Monday) might have some debate over which date they’re scheduled around (just like in 1939 jurisdictions had to decide whether to celebrate Thanksgiving on the “traditional” November 30 or FDR’s November 23).

Unlike the Franksgiving controversy which continued on until 1941 when the date was statutorily fixed on the fourth Thursday of November, after the spring of 2019 the Easter controversy would be moot until 2038 when there is another similar diversion due to the “full moons” coming on different sides of the (real and fixed) equinoxes (that year the current formula puts it on April 25 while astronomy puts it on March 28).

Here's some links/sources on the Thanksgiving date controversy:
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/us_history_1929_1945/96067
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/11/unhappy-franksgiving.html

Here's some on the Easter date controversy:
http://ericsammons.com/blog/2009/05/29/shared-easter/
http://www.moonwise.co.uk/neweaster.php

Generation gap and parenting: Depends on gender

2010-10-31T09:58:00.005-05:00

You may have noticed on my baby name discussions, there is a debate going on in the baby name community on how masculine a name given to a boy should be. Some think that a boy should be given only a masculine-sounding name that is used virtually only on boys, some think that softer-sounding names are okay as long as their masculine identity is clear, while others (like me) think that androgynous names should remain in consideration for boys. There is less debate on girl's names, as a wide range is already accepted (from very frilly to "no-frills" but clearly female to varying degrees of androgynous names). This is the situation today: half a saeculum as defined by Strauss and Howe (40 years) or so ago it was the opposite: With the feminist movement of the time parents of the day brought the trend of co-opting boy's names into a larger scale, but not much was going on to rock the boat with what they were naming their sons.

The "generation gaps" based on the child's gender which I mentioned above are reflected in other areas besides names as well. At the present, their is more debate on how boys should be raised (how much "gender leeway" they should be given, etc.) but the ideas on raising girls that were up for debate a generation or two ago (when not much was controversial with raising boys) have mostly been settled. This reflects an alternating "generation gap" between the new parent and his/her parents (the child's grandparents): Its strength is somewhat dependent on whether the child in question is a boy or a girl. Right now it's stronger for boys but not as great for girls; 40 years ago it was the opposite. Think about it: if a boy wants a doll, do ballet, etc. you are more likely to get resistance from his grandparents and members of their generation (especially men) than people of the child's or his parent's generation. A generation or two ago girls who wished to pursue "masculine" interests faced similar resistance by the older adults of the time.

The explanation for this is simply because a generation raised in a time when women were expected to stay at home and be housewives (like the Baby Boomers) will have a different outlook than one raised in a time when girls were outpacing boys in school, etc. (like the Millennials). The former types of generations are more likely to react in defining what is acceptable behavior for females but is not as likely to do the same for males (not having many controversies there); the latter are more likely to do the opposite.

As with most of what I post, this is based on my observations and is a generalization of the general population.

Jeopardy! going from 2T to 3T

2010-09-13T17:15:00.003-05:00

Last year I posted on my observations of the TV game show Jeopardy! following a cycle that lasts about 12 years which mimics the approximately 80-year Strauss and Howe cycle of generations and history. At the time of that blog post I observed the show being in the part of the cycle that is like a 2nd Turning, or Awakening. Now with the show's 27th season starting, there are signs that during this season it will transition into an Unraveling-like (3rd Turning) period. In the past new long-term tournament and special ideas have come about during these times (a "J-culum" ago it was Kid's Week and the one-time Armed Forces Week in 1999; another one before that it was the Teen Tournament, the now-defunct Seniors Tournament, and the College Championship). This season they're going to have their first-ever Teachers Tournament.

Him taking her last name?

2010-09-10T16:29:00.003-05:00

I have had several blog posts dealing with gender and names; one of the things I have talked about is how today's younger folks are in general more comfortable with a "softer" or "unisex" name for a boy than their parents were. There is another name-related sign that the male youth these days are becoming more comfortable with venturing outside of traditional gender norms (but this time it deals with last names): The number of husbands electing to take their wife's last name (rather than the tradition of the other way around) appears to be on the rise. Although still very much a minority group, that further shows signs of progress. Many states still require a groom who wants to go down this route to go through court as with a non-marriage-related name change, but a few allow husbands to take their wive's last names just as easily as she can take his. I couldn't find any official data on how many grooms are taking their bride's last name, but if you want to learn more you can search the Internet on this subject (here's the Google results for "take the wife's last name"). Here's an article from January 2007 about a California man who sued arguing that the law there at the time about changing last names upon marriage was sexist; here's a May 2008 follow-up from another source on the outcome.

More on name-taboo releases

2010-08-15T12:40:00.003-05:00

Last February I did a short blog on this subject. Below is a more thorough version on how every 40 years or so I've observed a class of names once not as desirable become more so.

What do the names Deborah and Jordan have in common? What common experiences would a Kathleen born in the 19-aughts, a Joshua born in the 1940s, and a (male) Kelly born in the 1980s (like me) have?

This blog is about three classes of names that once had taboos in the United States, but are now (or are becoming) mainstream (in some cases again). They are (in chronological order of their grip on the name pool): Irish names, Biblical names, and unisex names for boys.

The first group that I'll discuss is Irish names. In the mid-19th century Ireland had a major potato famine, resulting in large numbers of Irish people moving to other lands in hope of having enough food. When the U.S. started having all these Irish people coming over, an "anti-Irish" sentiment crept in among a lot of other Americans. It got so bad that there were Irish people trying to hide their heritage (e.g. one of Nameberry's founders, Pamela Redmond Satran, had a grandmother Bridget who changed her name to Bertha). About 80 years or so after the mass Irish migration (aka a "saeculum" in terms of generational authors William Strauss and Neil Howe; their sites are at these links), the American population finally accepted the Irish and their names started to come back in vogue. As time went on, being Irish even became fashionable (e.g. St. Patrick's Day became a popular holiday, in 1960 we elected a President [Kennedy] of Irish decent who probably wouldn't have had a chance a generation earlier, and even non-Irish people became interested in using their names).

About 40 years or so (or if you prefer, half a saeculum) after the mass Irish immigration to America (and other places), another group started coming onto American shores in large numbers: Jews. Up until this point Biblical names had exhibited a fashion in America, but when the Jews (who were strong users of such names themselves) came along those names become passé to many Americans. Like the anti-Irish sentiment that was establised when they immigrated, an anti-Jewish one was formed as well. As with many Irish who tried to hide their roots, many Jews took steps themselves to do the same (resulting in names like Irving which do not have Hebrew origins themselves acquiring a "Jewish" connotation when used in large numbers by Jews). Although a few Biblical names remained in common use, such as Ruth in the early 20th century and Deborah in the mid-20th century as well as names like James and Elizabeth which no longer seemed "Biblical" to the masses despite their origins, this was the time when such names were generally unfashionable or even taboo. The renaissance for Biblical names, as with the rise of Irish names in America, came about in the 1970s or so (once again about 80 years after the tightening of the use of such names began) with names like Matthew and Rachel becoming mainstream. Today parents are going even more out with Biblical names with choices like Ezekiel and Ezra (which would've been downright eccentric a lifetime ago) on the rise.

Fast forward another half-saeculum from the time of large Jewish immigration and you have another event beginning to affect American naming trends. This time it's not a group immigrating in large numbers, but rather one of the events of the move to liberate women. Around the time the 20th century was a quarter over people started giving their daughters traditionally masculine names like Beverly and Shirley in large numbers. When these names started becoming popular on females in large numbers, people became afraid to bestow them on boys and some males who already had these names tried to "hide" them by going by a middle name or even changing their name. For the next 80 years or so there were many names that fell fate to this trend: Leslie, Kim, Jody, Shannon, Ashley, Madison, Taylor, and many others like these rose in popularity for girls but became passe for boys. Like Ruth and Deborah from the Biblical picks that hung on through the Jewish storm, a few like Casey and Jordan hung on through the unisex name on girls one. Now that a full saeculum has passed since boys-names-on-girls first became fashionable there are many people who are expressing interested in reviving these kinds of names for boys in spite of them also being used for girls. We're already seeing this with more "newer" unisex names like Hayden and Riley hanging on for both genders, recently fashionable androgynous picks like Morgan at worst falling in roughly the same proportions for both genders, and even a growing interest in reviving names like Kelly and Shannon for boys.

Back to my introduction statement for my blog: Deborah (in the 1950s) and Jordan (in the 1990s) share the fact that they both showed signs of the tide about to turn a generation or so before it did (the former with Biblical names and the latter with androgynous names for boys). The statement about these people born in these respective eras: Kathleen (in the 19-aughts), Joshua (in the 1940s), and Kelly (male, in the 1980s) demonstrate those who may have had a bit of a rough time with their name growing up, but by their adulthood the taboo on names like theirs began to be lifted and to younger generations their names would (or will likely) be considered ahead of the curve at worst.

If you're already familiar with the aforementioned Strauss & Howe cycle, you will notice that each of these "taboos" began around the start of an Awakening or Crisis era and ended a saeculum later around the start of the next era of the same type. Examples of Crisis eras are the Civil War era, the Great Depression/World War II era, and the current era (there is still debate over when the current Crisis era began; some say 9/11, some say when Hurricane Katrina struck, and some say when the economy fell in 2008). Examples of Awakening eras are the "Consciousness Revolution" of the 1960s and 70s, and before that the "Missionary Awakening" of the 1880s that lasted into the 19-aughts. Both the Irish and androgynous-boy taboos started around the beginning of a Crisis era and ended (or are ending) at the start of the next one, and the Biblical/Jewish taboo ran from the start of one Awakening to the next. If you get more into S&H's works you will learn that Awakenings are generally spiritual/religious in nature and Crises are generally secular in nature, which for the "name taboos" makes since since the one that ran from Awakening-Awakening was about a religious group (Jews) and the ones that ran from Crisis-Crisis were not (Irish, "feminine males").

After I initially prepared this blog, I thought what might be the current religion-based name taboo that would be due to break at the circa 2050 Awakening: Muslim/Arabic names. Right now in the years after 9/11 such names overall are less than desirable for many Americans, but by then the new Prophet generation may not think so.

More on nicknames vs. formal names

2010-08-12T19:50:00.004-05:00

Recently on Nameberry there was a discussion on the U.K. vs. U.S. nickname/full name trends (which I also mentioned in a short blog post last November). However, I noticed a pattern with regards to nicknames and the S&H saeculum; in April 2009 Laura Wattenberg posted on how (particularly with boy's names) during the last Depression turned from more formal to more nicknamey/boyish. Looking at some of the U.S. stats between now and then led me to notice the pattern described in the next paragraph (these are just my projections from a U.S. perspective, and is primarily applicable for that location).

The desire for formal names peaks during Third Turnings (Unravelings), when people want to be the best they can individually (notice how there's also an obsession with "early resume building" for children during these times, following with that discussion on the Nameberry thread linked to above). We recently left such an era, which we had been in since the mid-1980s or so. During Foruth Turnings (Crises), such as the current time and (before) the Depression/World War II the obsession with formality in names drops. The desire for shorter names peaks during First Turnings (Highs) (e.g. the 1950s, and the era we'll probably be in within 15-20 years or so) and turns back to longer ones during Second Turnings (Awakenings) (e.g. the 1960s-1970s era, and we'll probably be in one circa 2050).

What does this mean? Over the next few years to decade or so, we'll likely see the obsession over names being "formal enough" fall and the number of birth certificates with nicknames on them will increase some.

Generation gap over quotation marks

2010-05-29T13:24:00.002-05:00

There appears to be a subtle sign of a generation gap between what older and younger Americans believe is the proper way to use periods and commas with quotations.

As mentioned at this site, in the U.S. the standard is to put end-of-sentence periods and quotation marks inside the sentence (even if they’re not part of the quote). For instance, “I think this is an outdated rule.” This rule was put in place (this may be a myth as the linked blog mentions) because of the fragility of the period and comma pieces for typesetting many years ago. However, today’s youth have probably never used or maybe even seen a typewriter (other than using one as a toy like I did when I was younger), and that’s why more young people out there see the illogicalness of this rule.

The U.K. follows the more logical rule of putting any punctuation that is not part of the quote outside of the quote marks. In places such as Canada (the linked blog in the previous paragraph is from a Canadian) the standard varies. (See the paragraph below for an example of the use of this style.)

Here in the U.S. I have heard older folks complain about how those younger often prefer the more logical style. I agree with them, and thus henceforth on my blog I will be putting them outside of the quotes using the “logical style”. (Up until now I’ve avoided writing sentences with quotes at the end on my blog to dodge this issue). By the way, I composed this blog post in Microsoft Word (and then did a cut/paste) and Word recognizes both styles (no green line either way). One of my favorite game shows (Jeopardy!) has adopted the logical style themselves (as discussed in this thread from January 2007 on the show’s message board).

Millennial namers: "Selfish" or not?

2010-04-21T09:16:00.004-05:00

Continuing my analysis of baby name trends and how Strauss and Howe’s generational theory relates to them, I discovered that there is an idea on how each archetype tends to name their children (and this might extend to other areas of parenting as well).

Prophet: Do what is best for me.
Nomad: Do what is best for the child.
Hero: Do what is best for society (at large).
Artist: Do what is best for the family (ancestors).

Of course these are very broad generalizations, but if you analyze the data you can see some general trends. Another thing that supports this theory is it has been mentioned at S&H's forums (I don't have the specific post(s) immediately available to link to) that Nomads overall tend to have better intergenerational relationships with those younger rather than older than them, while for Artists it's the opposite.

Today’s older parents (members of Generation X, the most recent Nomad generation) grew up in an era when children were often neglected and left to do on their own, so they are trying to do the opposite to their children (protecting them, sometimes too much). Therefore their general attitude towards naming has been centered on the child him/herself (rather than the parent, society in general, or the family).

Today’s younger parents (Millennials, members of the most recent Hero generation) are more civic-minded than their predecessors (or any generation since the G.I.s for that matter), and thus they think more in terms of what is best for society at large. This can be witnessed in the change of attitude towards unisex names for boys; older parents often say that you shouldn’t use such names because they’ll cause problems for him, but more younger ones are saying that you should go ahead and use them so they will not become “feminized” forever (as what has happened to numerous “unisex” names already). Xers often think that the parents are being “selfish” when doing that, but they are really anything but selfish because they’re trying to stop the depleting of the male name pool. The ones who tend to be the most selfish about naming would probably be the Prophets, who tend to be the most self-centered of all the generations (the last Prophet generation [the Boomers] are pretty much beyond the age of giving birth).

In addition, the more outer-focused attitude of Millennials is also helping to slow down the abandonment of boy’s names to the girls. Think about it: Compared to young Xers 20 years ago today’s youth are more likely to be conscious about protecting the environment rather that “me” coming first. Millennials also understand the power of voting; one of the reasons why young Xers often stayed away from the polls is that they did not think that “their” vote mattered, but Millennials understand the power of their collective vote. Back on the subject of naming, the same philosophy applies to the unisex name issue; 20 years ago parents thinking of just their kids and themselves would often turn away from a “girlified” name for a boy to avoid “problems” for him. Today’s parents are starting to change, understanding that abandoning such names makes it worse by shrinking the male name pool and (collectively) thus are starting to not let that be as much of a factor and help keep said names in circulation for boys.

My prediction of how Artist generations would name (such as 20-40 years from now when the Homelanders [the Artist generation currently being born] become the predominant generation of parents of babies) is that being conformist during their youth they would tend more towards pleasing their ancestors’ wishes in naming (as opposed to Nomads who would look down the family tree towards the children). This might result in a stronger trend of keeping “family names” alive. A piece of advice for Xers and Millennials naming Homelanders: Don’t be afraid to use something a bit unusual but still on the “normal” side (and for fathers that want to break a Junior, III, etc. tradition this is the time to do it); that way the pressure on them to continue the name on won’t be quite as strong (this advice especially applies to boys as the pressure to keep family names going is typically stronger for them).

Generations J, K, and L?

2010-04-14T15:02:00.003-05:00

Following the terming of the generation following the Boomers “Generation X” some extended the “letter names” to call the following generation after that Generation Y and the next one after that Generation Z. Strauss and Howe seem to dislike those kinds of names though because it makes the Millennials (what they call X’s successor generation instead of Generation Y) like an extension of Generation X (like they mentioned in Millennials Rising).

How about Generations J, K, and L instead? Those names derive from “fashionable initial letters” for baby names during the respective period. Generation J encompasses roughly the late Xers and early Millennials when names beginning with J were fashionable such as Jennifer, Jessica, and Jason (the first and the last of those inspiring the title of Pamela Redmond Satran and Linda Rosenkrantz’s original name book Beyond Jennifer and Jason).

K was the fashionable letter during the time that the late Millennials and the early Homelanders were born (especially with spelling names that normally begin with a “C” with a “K” instead).

L now seems to be the new fashionable letter as we are nearing the midway point of the Homeland Generation, as S&R and Laura Wattenberg have posted on their blogs. If the pattern with J and K continues, L will continue its run on being the new fashionable letter until the early-mid part of the “New Prophet” generation (calling this unnamed future generation by using the Strauss and Howe archetypes). Will the pattern continue and M become the fashionable letter 20 years or so from now?

Name-taboo releases: Irish, then OT, what's next?

2010-02-26T12:44:00.005-06:00

Laura Wattenberg at The Baby Name Wizard site recently did a post about how Old Testament names are becoming quite popular in the U.S. The post primarily focused on why they are more popular (in general, note the last paragraph in the post) in the U.S. than Europe. I thought of something else related to that, and it ties into the changing generations. Before I talk about the OT names, I'm going to first talk about another group of names that is quite popular in the U.S. right now: Irish names.

A century ago, being Irish in the U.S. was less than desirable. However, around the time of the last Fourth/First Turnings (1920s-1960s) the Irish became accepted (and as time went on it became "cool" to be "Irish" even if you weren't). This explains the rise in names of Irish origin since then, and before the Silent Generation or so it was much less common for a baby to be given an Irish name.

Fast forward half a saeculum to the last Second/Third Turnings (1960s-2000s decades), and another name taboo is released (and has likewise subsequently became more popular): Old Testament names. For the past several generations before that such names tended to have too strong of a Jewish connotation for a lot of people (even though as Wattenberg mentioned in her post there had been a strong history of their use prior to that era in the U.S.). However the taboo of being Jewish was lifted around the last 2T or so, and thus since Generation X or so OT names have been on the rise. Now there were a few exceptions here and there that were popular during the Jew-taboo era (such as Ruth in the early part of the 20th century and Deborah in the middle part of that century), but what I'm saying is of course a generalization.

If you're familiar with the S&H theory, you know that Fourth Turnings center around reshaping the secular world, and Second Turnings around reshaping the spiritual world. This may explain the half-saeculum difference in the release of the Irish and Jewish taboos: The former centers around an ethnic (i.e. secular) group while the latter centers around a religious (i.e. spiritual) group.

So, what can we expect to change in this regard in this 4T (and the next 1T)? According to my theory in the last paragraph, it will be something secular (and not religious). I have a hypothesis on what it will be (and I did some blog posts about it a few months ago): The taboo on "softer males" (and thus "softer" or unisex names on boys will not be as avoided as they were in recent decades).

Riley: Will it stay unisex or not?

2010-02-16T08:03:00.008-06:00

Cleveland Kent Evans, who has written numerous name-related articles* claims that any name ending in the "-ley" sound is doomed to become feminine in the United States. While it is true that such names (or any name ending in the long "e" sound for that matter) which are traditionally masculine are more likely to become unisex, Evans is ignoring an important trend: The rising generation of new adults (the Millennials) are more likely than recent previous generations to not let a name's usage on girls deter them from giving it to their sons (which I've posted about before). *I previously mentioned Evans being president of the American Name Society, but he informed me that he no longer holds the position so I edited it out.

What got me to post this is that Evans has been predicting for several years (by posts he's made on sites such as http://www.babynames.com/ and http://www.behindthename.com/) that the name Riley will follow a similar path to other past surnames that end in -ley that became popular as first names (such as Ashley and Shirley) and become almost exclusively female in the U.S. However, I think that Riley is much more likely to stay unisex (albeit more popular for girls) than those other names because Riley peaked for boys at a much higher rank and hasn't experienced a fairly sudden drop compared the other examples (probably in part to my theory based on the generations). Evans's prediction may have had some muster 10 years or so ago when Riley was beginning to level off for boys and increase for girls, but since the name hasn't fallen much for boys it appears that his prediction is only semi-right (the name did become more popular for girls, but not to the extent he thought it would).

In addition, if Jennifer Moss from babynames.com is right, "crossover" names for girls in general are starting to level off in use (probably from the same Millennials that want to keep names on their original gender). Therefore, I think that unlike what Evans predicted I think there will still be plenty of male Rileys being born (although plenty of girls will be given that name too). Note that in my blog post from last July that I linked to earlier in this post I mentioned that Moss originally tended to be against unisex names for boys, but now her opinion appears to be changing some with the times (at least by predicting that the trend for girls will be falling).

Unusual names for boys may actually be better after all

2009-11-15T13:23:00.004-06:00

Back in August I wrote this blog post about some who think that giving a boy an unusual name may be a detriment to him. I found another article here that says that a distinctive name may actually be a benefit to a man.

I think the thing to remember is that an unusual but legit name is not what causes the problems mentioned in the study cited in the August blog post linked to here, but rather names that tend to be indicative of "lower class" status (as I've mentioned before).

U.S./U.K. on longer names vs. nicknames as full names

2009-11-12T19:38:00.002-06:00

Someone over at Nameberry brought up a point on how it is currently fashionable in Britain to use nickname-type names as full names while Americans are going the other way and tending to longer names. Interestingly enough, about 40 years ago (which happens to be one-half of a Strauss and Howe saeculum*) it was the opposite - Americans were the ones going for nicknamey names and the British going for more formality.

*Maybe it's then a generational thing and that the U.S. and U.K. are running on opposite points of the cycle on this name issue?

The 12-year "J-culum"

2009-10-25T13:56:00.005-05:00

In being a fan of the game show Jeopardy! (which I will shorten to J! throughout this blog post) and being familiar with William Strauss and Neil Howe's works, I noticed that the show appears to follow a cycle of about 12 years with each turning being about 3 years long similar to how our society follows an approximately 80 year cycle with 4 turnings each about 20 years long. I haved named this cycle the "J-culum" (a spinoff on S&H's use of the term "saeculum").

First-turning J!: After all the major workings changes and record-setting contestant runs and tournaments of the 4T, the show returns to a more balanced state with fewer record-conquering contestants and the basic "answers and questions" that the show is known for. Towards the end of a 1T, the show experiences a staleness with regards to its "quirks" which have remained largely unchanged since the last 2T and starts a new one. The most recent High on J! was from right after the Ultimate Tournament of Champions in 2005 until sometime in the mid-late part of the 2007-08 season (sometime between when Dan Pawson broke the streak of no 6+ game winners and the changes to the theme and think music at the start of the 2008-09 season). The previous High was between sometime in the 1992-93 season and about midway through the 1995-96 season (more on that cutoff in the 2T description below).

Second-turning J!: The show experiences a "bells and whistles" overhaul during this time, and the material reaches its most "dumbed down" point. The show is in a 2T at this time, and was likewise in one from sometime in the 1995-96 season (the first International Tournament and the discontinuation of the Seniors Tournament kicked off that 2T) until partway through the 1998-99 season. Unlike 4T special tournaments, ones during a 2T are more oriented towards showing past contestants rather than playing for big prizes (e.g. the Kid's Reunion Tournament in September 2008 and the Teen Reunion Tournament in November 1998). Celebrity Jeopardy! tends to be a common feature of J! Awakenings, such as the tournament going on this season and the CJ! games peppered throughout the season during the 1997-98 and 1998-99 ones. This is the least contestant-friendly and most hands-off contestant rearing time of the J-culum: witness how Jeff Kirby snuck back on after previously appearing about 10 years earlier (the rules say that you're not allowed to try out again after appearing on the Trebek version), the inconvienience put on the contestants with the very late-in-the-day tapings at the 2009 Tournament of Champions in Las Vegas, and the emphasis on pop culture material during the last 2T. During this Awakening and the last one there was a change in the theme and Think! music, a set change, and other traditions of the show being shunned (such as when the "pop in" sound was eliminated at the start of the 2008-09 season).

Third-turning J!: Eventually the producers want the show to return to being more contestant-friendly, less dumbed-down material, and like at the start of a 1T a more "normal" feel. However, during a J! Unraveling the perception of the show is opposite that of a High: the quirks are fresh but the strengths of the contestants aren't (few records and the like set since the last 4T). The last Unraveling started probably sometime in the latter half of the 1998-99 season and ended when the clue values were doubled in November 2001. The show is due to start another 3T sometime in the 2010-11 season.

Fourth-turning J!: This is when the show sees overhauls that enable the contestants to perform bigger than before, and when the contestant selection process is most geared to selecting the best ones. The last 4T has been described above: it began with the doubling of the clue values (a 4T reform) in November 2001 and ended with the Ultimate Tournament of Champions (a 4T-style "big bucks" and "best of the best" tournament) in February-May 2005. The doubling of the clue values enabled contestants to win more money than previously (and set a few new "records"), as did the removal of the 5-game limit at the start of the 2003-04 season). In addition to the UToC, the Million Dollar Masters tournament in May 2002 was another 4T-style one. Before that 4T the previous one began sometime in the 1989-90 season (likely with Bob Blake's record-setting for the time appearance) and ended sometime in the 1992-93 season. This appears to be when the J-culum really began to start evolving. Like the most recent 4T this one featured some other record-setting contestants (such as Frank Spangenberg and Jerome Vered) as well as a big tournament (Super Jeopardy!). Unlike the "Crisis" of the social 4T, J! fans actually may somewhat look forward to 4Ts on the show. The next one will likely come around about the time the show is celebrating its 30th anniversary (and the 50th anniversary since the original introduction of the Art Fleming version); maybe that's when we'll have the next Ken Jennings or UToC2. Like during a 2T, there is usually a set change during a 4T.

I don't know what makes this 12-year cycle work (maybe the show is ruled by the life cycle of dogs, maybe it follows a cycle like the Chinese Year one, maybe it's the average turnaround of people in charge of the show, maybe it's the length of the time for viewers to tire of the show going one way and tiring the other way and going back again). This post mentioned my observations and theory on this cycle.

Follow up on previous blog post about unusual names for boys

2009-10-13T13:23:00.006-05:00

Back in August 2009 I posted this blog with my comments on some stories (countering what they say) I found which say that unusual names affect boys in a negative way. I was looking again at the story at the first link in that blog and found that it's mathematically skewed. Here's a quote from a post I made on that at Nameberry (also quoted at the bottom is a line about confusing black or unfavorably-ethnic names with those that are merely uncommon):

If I recall correctly the most popular name got a 100 and a name with half as many bearers got a 50, a quarter of the most popular name was a 25, and so on. What that does is overweigh the results of just the few most popular names (whether that be good or bad) and underweighs the result of the less common names (which in this case gives the author a false or at least skewed conclusion). The mathematically correct way to conduct this experiment is instead of the aforementioned scale use the actual percentages to compute the results (if that is a bit unwidely taking the reciprocal of the precentages will yield the same results, this time with a higher value corresponding to a more unusual name).
Also, those who are doing such studies need to separate the concept of black or other unfavorably-ethnic names from those that are merely unusual (with the former there have been valid studies about resume response with such names, etc.).

Generations and Jeopardy! wagering tendencies

2009-09-27T13:52:00.003-05:00

After several name and gender related blog posts, I'm finally going to move onto another subject (the S&H theory will still be involved though). One of my favorite game shows is Jeopardy!, and I've done some studying on wagering theory in that game. I'm posting this blog discussing how general wagering habits of the contestants have changed over time.

Jeopardy! fans who remember watching the show during the Art Fleming era may remember that back then all three contestants won whatever money they had (but like now only the winner got to return to play again). When the Trebek version started in 1984 the rules changed so that only the winner got to keep his/her winnings, mainly because back in the Fleming days contestants would often give up any chance at winning so that he/she could keep whatever had been won at that point. The rule changed helped make the game more competitive since the score would now effectively be only points until the game was won. I have a good explanation why Fleming-era contestants tended to be more cautious with their winnings, and why some people think the game should return to the original format of everyone keeping what they have. The secret is in the generational archetype of the contestants. Of course what I'm about to say is a very broad generalization and you will very likely find contestants who don't fit the general description, but in terms of general tendencies it's a good description.

According to William Strauss and Neil Howe there are four different "archetypes" of generations with a different one succeeding each other in a fixed order and repeating every four generations, with each generation (in modern times) lasting about 20 years or so (an exception was around the time of the Civil War in which one of the archetypes was skipped, for reasons I won't get into here). Each archetype varies in several attributes, such as whether they're individually or collectively focused, or whether they're risk-adverse or risk-takers. The particular attributes I gave examples to are the ones that give some clues to how one would wager on Jeopardy!.

In Jeopardy!-fan speak, "Venusian" refers to one who likes to wager small, i.e. risk-adverse and "Martian" refers to the opposite, i.e. one who likes to wager big. In terms of generational archetypes, there is one that tends to be risk-adverse (the Adaptives or Artists) and one on the opposite side of the saeculum (the 80-year or so cycle of generations and types of eras) that tends to be risk-takers (the Reactives or Nomads). Examples of the former include the Silent Generation (which S&H define as those born from 1925-1942) and the current crop of children being born (since the early to mid years of this decade). Examples of the latter are Generation X (born 1961-1981) and before them the Lost Generation (born 1883-1900). The generations in between (which I'll get into more detail on later in this blog) will tend to be somewhere between these two extremes. During the orignal Fleming era (1964-1975) Silent contestants probably made up a plurality of the total players of the time. As I mentioned Silents come from a risk-adverse generation, and as you might expect that would apply to Jeopardy! as well (hence the large number of contestants from that era who would rather "keep what they had" then to try and go for the win if they could). The opposite types of generations were largely out of the picture at the time (there were probably at least a few Lost contestants but probably not a significant number, and unless they had a Kids or [at the very end of the era] Teen version Xers would've all been too young to try out).

At the start of the Trebek era Silents probably no longer made up the plurality of contestants (that honor went to the next generation, the Boomers) but still a singnificant number, hence the implementation of the "winner take all" rule. Also at the time Xers were just starting to age into the young contestant range, and later on likely took the "plurality of contestants" honor. This means that now, unlike during the Fleming era, there are more contestants from a risk-taking generation (Xers) than a risk-adverse one (although still a few Silents not as many as before, and any members of the Homeland generation [the tentative name for the generation which is being born into right now] are too young even for Kid's Week). If the rules were to revert to the keep-what-you-have setup of the Fleming era, I think that the number of Venusian contestants would be lower than back then.

Now on to the other two types of generations. An attribute of Idealist or Prophet generations (e.g. Boomers, born between 1943-1960) is that they tend to be individualistic (hence phrases like the "Me Generation"). In terms of Jeopardy! wagering that means that they are less likely to wager for a tie for "generosity" reasons, with the opposite applying to the collectivist Civic or Hero generations (e.g. the Millennials born between 1982 and sometime in the early to middle years of the current decade, and before them the G.I.s born 1901-1924). Alternate terms that are more widely known to Jeopardy! fans that may be used to describe these various behaviors include "debunkitive" and "cooperative". This logic may also be used (although with no certainty) to predict whether or not players in a Prisoner's Dilemma (where the leaders are tied and the third contestant if there is one is too distant to catch up to them if they wager nothing) will "cooperate" by betting nothing and ensuring a co-win as long as they both follow through with the wagering or "debunk" by betting everything to ensure a win (or co-win) as long as the contestant in question gets Final Jeopardy! right (note that $0 is never considered a winning score on Jeopardy!, so it is impossible to win if you bet everything and respond to Final Jeopardy! wrong). With the Millennials being the fastst growing group of contestants, I predict that there may be more contestants betting for the tie in the coming years (incidentally restoring the old Fleming-era setup mentioned earlier may reduce this, since there won't be an incentive to tie so that The Powers That Be end up paying out more to the contestants).

Another name-related article that is probably Boomer-centric

2009-08-22T12:37:00.001-05:00

Here is a recent article that mentions how women with masculine names are likely to be paid better in certain fields (this article focuses on judges):
http://www.canada.com/life/Girls+names+determine+income+later+life/1916492/story.html

This has also been used as a justification for using unisex or masculine names on girls. Although I'm in the camp that women should not have to hide their feminity in order to bust the glass ceiling, the idea of using a more gender-neutral name to get ahead probably worked...back when the Boomers were the ones entering the workforce. Probably not so much of an effect for the Millennials (the generation now entering the workforce) though. In fact, in some ways Millennial females are better off than their male peers (in which case hiding one's feminity probably doesn't do much good and may even be counterproductive in some ways, and the idea of going by something unisex might actually be a good idea for young men wanting to get ahead in areas where women are now dominating). This article is another example of someone trying to extrapolate what was likely true 30 or 40 years ago and assuming that it would apply today when it doesn't so much.

More on names, gender, and generations

2009-08-19T12:07:00.001-05:00

I was browsing around on the Internet and found this article which says that giving a boy an unusual name is a bad thing. I also found this blog in which a grandfather-to-be also suggests not naming a boy something unusual.

I'm not sure of the age of either of the persons who wrote the above, but I have a feeling that they're most likely Boomers (and if not then not more than a few years on either side from being one). Remember the last couple of my blog posts which mentioned how Boomers appear the biggest supporters of gender double-standards? The same thing applies here; if someone suggests using an unusual name for a girl but steering away from one for a boy chances are he/she is a Boomer (or possibly early Xer).

ETA: Although traditionally boys have overall been given more conventional and less creative names, it seems that Boomers and those around the same area in terms of cohort have been more blatantly divergent on how boys and girls are named then previously (e.g. how G.I.s named their children).

Follow up on gender role attitudes

2009-07-09T12:57:00.001-05:00

In my last blog post (link below this paragraph) describing how Millennials are overall the ones who like the idea of unisex or softer names for boys the most, Boomers are the ones who most support the double standard of unisex names for girls but not for boys, Xers are somewhere in between the Boomers and the Millennials, Silents are the ones before the Millennials came along who were the closest to equality in unisex naming, and the G.I.s generally preferred gender-specific names both ways.
http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2009/07/generations-and-attitude-towards-unisex.html

My observation is that those name trends are also closely linked to each generation's view on acceptable gender behavior. Going forward this time, the G.I.s tended to have sharply defined gender roles but there was not much of a double standard (boys/men were expected to be masculine and girls/women expected to be feminine). The Silents brought in a little more androgyny but except in the arena of names they tended to be in between the G.I.'s crisp roles and the Boomer's double standard. With the Boomers they expanded acceptable gender roles greatly for females but not so much so for males, hence the double standard in gender expectations that we've seen over the past few decades. The Xers pretty much followed along with the Boomers until the Millennials came along, and now they're often torn between the two different expectations. Finally, the group that makes up today's youngest adults - the Millennials - is finally starting to help widen the acceptable range of behavior for males (as I mentioned the metrosexual movement became noticeable in the public eye around the time the oldest Millennials were coming of age).

Once again these are all generalizations and may not apply to every individual in each group.

Generations and attitude towards unisex names

2009-07-09T07:18:00.001-05:00

Linking my knowledge on baby name trends and the Strauss & Howe generational cycle, here's my theory on the unisex name issue and how people from different generations perceive it. This is written from the perspective of the parents who are/were naming their children, not the recepients of the names themselves. For the most part a particular generation of kids is fed by parents from the previous two generations (for example the current crop of children being born, what has tentatively been named the Homeland generation, mostly has parents from Generation X and the Millennial generation). Warning: Descriptions of people in the various generations are generalizations; you may or may not fit the general pattern.

If you've been on a baby name forum recently you have probably noticed a group of people who like the idea of using names that are traditionally masculine but have since been co-opted by the girls on the original gender again. From my observations, the ones who support this idea the most are the youngest of the crowd currently doing the baby naming - members of the Millennial generation (those born from about 1982 to sometime in the early to mid point of the 2000s decade). This is why these days when a name becomes hot for both genders it is becoming more likely that it will stay truly unisex (such as Hayden and Riley) rather than become a mostly girl name. Although there are also quite a few Millennials who don't like unisex names, when they don't it's more likely to be for both genders rather than only for boys (as was the case for many Boomers and early Xers).

The predecessors to the Millennials, Generation X (those born from about 1961 to 1981) seem to have a fairly "objective" view on the unisex name issue. For example, in Laura Wattenberg's book The Baby Name Wizard (she is an Xer) she tells about how unisex names tend to become more feminine over time and suggests a few names that may cross over, but doesn't actively promote the trend like Boomer authors Pamela Redmond Satran and Linda Rosenkrantz have (more on that below). From the boy's perspective, she neither recommends using "unisexed" names on boys nor dissuades their use. The early Gen-Xers (like http://www.babynames.com/ founder Jennifer Moss) often have a similar attitude as the Boomers (on her Q&A page she seems to like names like Hayden and Madison for girls but recommends against names like Shiloh for boys), while the later ones have an attitude reminiscent of the Millennials' but aren't quite as gutsy about "taking back" names (e.g. they might say "I love [insert unisex name] for a boy but I wouldn't want to give a name like that to my own son").

The Boomers (using the S&H dates of 1943-1960 rather than the fertility bulge dates of 1946-1964) tend to be the strongest promoters of the "double standard" of using unisex or even outright masculine names for girls but dissuading the use of the same names for boys. For example, in some of Satran (who has a daughter named Rory) and Rosenkrantz's earlier books they have a whole list of traditionally masculine names that they think would be cool for girls but elsewhere in the book they have a section on why you shouldn't use a name that is likely to also be used for a girl on a boy. Recently they have become more balanced on the issue (probably so as to not scare off the Millennial audience), but even in their newest book Beyond Ava and Aiden there are still signs that they prefer the use of such names for girls (on their list of "Unisex Names" they include names like Connor and Elliot which have very rarely been used on girls but are still seen by the general public as male names) but not "older" unisex names like Kelly and Shannon (which if you asked a member of the general public if they're unisex or not you'd be more likely to get a "yes" response with those than the previously mentioned Connor and Elliot).

Before the Boomers was the Silent Generation (born from about 1925 to 1942). Unlike the Boomers this generation was more open to using unisex names both ways (for example Bruce Lansky, who has written several baby name books, is a Silent). Although they probably had a slight preference for using them on girls (e.g. Lansky's daughter Dana), they weren't as turned away from them on boys as what was the case for Boomers (for instance names like Jody and Kelly were more widely used both ways during the late '50s and '60s when the Silents still made up the lion's share of parents as opposed to later during the '70s when Boomer parents took over and those names became mostly used for girls).

Going back yet another generation to the G.I.s (born c. 1901-1924), they were not a fan of crossovers in general and preferred gender-specific names for both boys and girls. Although a few formerly masculine names like Beverly and Shirley were popular during their peak naming era, they actually crossovered from predominately masculine to predominately feminine during the prime naming period of the two generations that came before them (the Missionary and Lost generations).

In essence the Millennials have formed a "generation gap" in naming attitudes (and attitudes towards acceptable masculine behavior in general, which I'll get to in a later blog post) between them and the Boomers, much like the generation gap with society in general between the G.I.s and the Boomers in the 1960s. Like the Boomers back then who didn't like the way things were in general, today Millennials don't like how females have a wider range of acceptable names (or behavior) than males and are "rebelling" against their elder Boomers in that respect (note that the term "metrosexual" came into the vocabulary of the general public at about the time that the oldest Millennials were coming of age). For the generation in between (in this case of gender issues the Xers, in the case 40 years ago the Silents) they tend to follow their elders at first (albeit sometimes unenthusiastically) but some may "switch positions" when their different-thinking juniors come along. Like a G.I. politician 40 or so years ago who had to adjust how he/she voted in order to not be defeated by young Boomer voters, Boomer authors of baby-name books (like Satran and Rosenkrantz) have to adjust their ideas on name ideas for boys in order to not scare off the young Millennial audience. In both cases the older person might not be enthusiastic about adjusting, but realizes that he/she must in order to win at least some approval from the younger ones.

Here's the post on Satran & Rosenkrantz's Nameberry blog about this subject that inspired me to go ahead and make this post:
http://nameberry.com/blog/2009/07/08/the-softer-side-of-boys-names/

For more links on these subjects, look at the bottom of my previous blog post:
http://millennialkelly.blogspot.com/2009/07/names-and-generations.html

Names and generations

2009-07-02T16:27:00.000-05:00

If you've familiarized yourself with the Strauss & Howe cycle, you know that there are four different archetypes of generations that repeat every 80 years or so (with an exception around the time of the Civil War in which there was no Civic/Hero generation). For those who study trends in baby names you probably notice that when a name gets really popular and is not a classic (this applies more often to girl's names than boy's names since boys are more likely to be named after their fathers than girls after their mothers but can still apply with some of the more trendy boy's names), it usually does not come back in popularity for at least 100 years or so. Both are "four-generation" cycles, but the reason that the archetype cycle is shorter than the name cycle is probably because of a number of factors.

One is what governs the length of generations in each cycle. With the archetype cycle the length is determined by the approximate length of each phase of life (i.e. Childhood, Early Adulthood, Mid-life, Elderhood, Late Elderhood) which in modern times is roughly 20 years. The name cycle is likely based on the average age of reproduction, which in the current times is a little over 25 years. The name cycle thus runs at 100 years (or a little more than that) compared to the S&H cycle (which a person's parents [in most cases] can come from either the preceding generation to the child's or the one before that).

Another factor is that the S&H cycle is largely dependent on how much power a person has on society; his/her influence is smaller during childhood and once one gets so old that he/she must be dependent on others as compared to the other three phases of life. Whereas a name is (usually) with a person from birth until death (and thus 80 years may be long enough for a fresh start on generational attitudes, but a name will still have an "old person" feel to it).

There are a few exceptions to names coming back early, like Audrey (which has recently become more popular but last peaked in the 1920s) and Laura (which ranked high in the 1880s but was up high again by the 1960s, mentioned in a past blog post on The Baby Name Wizard [links are at the bottom of this blog post]); on the other hand these names never became exceptionally dated which might have helped them return sooner. At the other extreme sometimes names do not come back for even longer than this cycle predicts, such as Mabel (which was most popular in the 1880s and 1890s but has yet to return to even the top 1,000).

Links about Strauss and Howe's information:
http://www.fourthturning.com/
http://www.lifecourse.com/

The Social Security Administration's name popularity site (has the top 1,000 names for each year and decade back to 1880):
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/babynames

Laura Wattenberg's The Baby Name Wizard site (her NameVoyager program is especially useful for visualizing the popularity of names over time and is based on the SSA stats):
http://www.babynamewizard.com/

Nameberry (the site run by Pamela Redmond Satran and Linda Rosenkrantz, co-authors of numerous baby naming books):
http://www.nameberry.com/

Behind the Name (great side for finding out the etymologies on names):
http://www.behindthename.com/

About me

2009-06-29T07:17:00.001-05:00

Since I just created my blog, I'll start by telling a little about myself. I am a guy named Kelly (yes, that's right; in fact name-related subjects is one that you'll be seeing regularly on here). You'll notice that the URL and my signing name is "Millennialkelly"; the "millennial" part comes from my generational classification based on the works by William Strauss and Neil Howe; to learn more you can check out http://www.lifecourse.com/ for more information (these generational issues is something else that I'll be posting about in the near future). Finally, one of my favorite TV shows is the game show Jeopardy!; that's something else that I'll probably be posting about as time goes on (especially when it comes to wagering strategy).