Sebastian: Nickname-Rich Name of the Week (June 7)

As the first boy's name I'm covering in this series, I'll be starting off with a name that is fairly rare among adult Americans but is a hot choice for modern children: Sebastian. Since this name is far less ubiquitous in the general population than last week's name, this name is often nicknamed for purposes of making the name shorter and easier to handle rather than as a distinguishing aid (indeed some people dismiss using him because Sebastian is "too long" or "pretentious"). Personally except as a casual shortening I'd try to stick with the full name, but if you were to shorten Sebastian how would you do it? Seb, Bastian, or something else? What do you think of the name in general?

Elizabeth: Nickname-Rich Name of the Week (May 31)

Since I've never done a regular series on my blog before, I thought that over the course of this summer (or winter for the antipodal readers of this blog) on each Thursday I'd feature a name that lends itself to numerous nicknames and see which ones (or simply the full name itself) is preferred. Each week I'll be alternating between girl and boy names (except for the week of July 4th which would normally be a boy's week but I'm taking off in celebrating my country's Independence Day).

To start off with, what better than to feature what is probably the Queen of Nickname-Rich Names: Elizabeth. As with many of the more common names I will be featuring, a lot of her nicknames derived in order to distinguish the many bearers of the name. For centuries she's been one of the most popular girl's names throughout the English-speaking world (in the U.S. she's never ranked lower than #26 on the SSA list and was at #11 last year). As a result Elizabeth has too many spin-offs to mention here, but I'll mention some that strike my fancy:
Betsy - My "old favorite" among Elizabeth nicknames.
Betty - Mad Men is making many fashions of the era retro-chic again, and this name is one of them. You probably know some middle-aged-to-older Bettys, both as an independent name and a nickname for Elizabeth.
Eliza - Although I like this one better as a stand-alone name (and is not "unprofessional" like many other nicknames-as-full-names are), she's among the 19th Century antique revivals that are fashionable right now.
Libby - Probably the quirkiest of my favorites, she's been growing on me lately.

What nicknames for Elizabeth do you like (both among those I've mentioned and those I didn't)? Or do you simply like Elizabeth by herself in her classic glory?

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

I took another look at David Figlio's study on how he posits that boys with unisex names are more likely to be disruptive and/or misbehave. As I said in my first rebuttal to his study, I brought up the limited scope he conducted it under (one school district, only looking at one four-year age range) and how because of that you should take it with a grain of salt (since if other age ranges and/or school districts were to be studied we'd probably get different results).

I found two more ways this study may well not be as applicable as many (such as Nancy from Nancy's Baby Names, who has censored some comments I've made on her blog trying to disprove the applicability/validity of the study) make it out to be:

• If you look at the graph on the fifth-from-last page on the study's page, you'll see that the effect he describes (misbehaving more come sixth grade) is a much smaller effect than the other variables, such as race and gender. Therefore this is a classic case where someone finds a small effect and makes it sound much bigger than it really is.
• In the paper it mentions the studies were done during school years 1996-1997 and 1999-2000. That means the subjects in the study were born between the mid-1980s and the early-1990s (given he looked at students in grades 3-6 during those school years). A lot has changed in the baby naming scene since those students were born; for example, we've seen a large decline in the percentage of babies given a "common" name* (a larger drop than between any other two previous generations for as far back as the SSA list goes). Likewise there are many more unisex names in popular circulation than a generation ago (think about all the Averys, Haydens, Rileys, etc. of both genders among today's kids), and unlike with the Ashleys and Leslies of yesteryear many of today's unisex names are still popular on boys even with their usage on girls (and both genders are wearing them quite peacefully). What this means is a 2012-born unisex-named boy probably won't have the same "outcast" feel as a boy among the cohorts the study looked at, and that renders the study questionable at best when it comes to what you should or shouldn't choose for a baby name. *Because of that the same (studies done on those who would now be adults that would be of debatable applicability to naming modern babies) would also apply to any study that says that those with more "common" names are more likely to be successful; after all there are now no names as common percentage-wise as Jennifer, Jason, Linda, Robert, Mary, or John were back in their prime eras.

The name anachronism that bothers me the most...

...has nothing to do with peoples' first names. Take a look at a globe or world map, and notice the lines of latitude a bit more than 23 degrees north and south of the equator. "Tropic of Cancer" and "Tropic of Capricorn" are what you'll almost certainly see. If you want to learn more about why those are anachronisms, search the Internet for "precession" and you'll probably find something among the first few hits that explains why. Hint: Unlike character names being off by decades or even centuries, the naming of the aforementioned parallels are outdated on the scale of millennia.

Just as the Mid-20th Century has become an "idyllic" period for childhood, the "astronomical idyllic" period is around the time of Christ and the century or two before. This also explains why the astrological "sun signs" largely do not match the actual constellations anymore.

The Name Anachronism Scale (NAS)

I've come up with a 1-5 scale that can be used to "grade" character names, etc. on how well a name fits the character's generation and/or time period. Since on several name sites I've heard comments on how sometimes characters have names that are unlikely based on the chronological setting, ranging from the totally unrealistic to the plausible but less likely, I thought I'd create a scale to rate the various degrees of anachronism.

1 = The most egregious anachronisms, those with characters named something that usually wouldn't have even been in the first name lexicon of the time. Examples would be medieval females named Shannon or Taylor, or in modern times even a Gen-X or older Jayden or (female) Madison. By their nature these kinds of anachronisms usually happen in one direction only (named something ahead of the setting's time rather than behind).

2 = Characters named something that, although in the name lexicon, would be very unlikely for someone of the character's generation. Examples would be a modern girl named Agnes, or the Samantha mentioned in this post on Laura Wattenberg's blog. In general at a minimum the name would have to be out of the Top 1,000 for the character's cohort (and if the name was never very popular to begin with it would have to be even lower).

3 = Characters with a name that is unlikely but not totally out of the woods. For a name that reached the point it was/is an "everyday" name for a particular generation, this would typically represent the time it was below about the #100-200 mark but still in the Top 1,000. An example would be a Baby Boomer named Jacob, or Verizon's "Susie's Lemonade" commercials.

4 = Characters with a name that would be less likely for his/her generation (as compared to another one) but still perfectly plausible. An example is baby Amy on Up All Night (Reagan and Ava's names are borderline between a 2 and 3). Amelia on Private Practice also gets a 4 (though if the name keeps climbing the charts that might have to get downgraded to a 3 as Amelia becomes a "2010s name"; on the other hand Addison gets a 1!). For names that became very popular at a particular time, this would typically be when it is/was less popular but still in the Top 100-200 or so.

5 = Name fits the character's generation just about right. Although some name-nerdy authors might try to give all the characters "5" names, that might actually be "over-realistic" (especially if the story is intended to remain popular throughout time, rather than marketed mainly for a particular era). With stories that are destined to become classics, as well as those set in the distant future, it would be best to avoid too many names from any one era.

Is Amy the new Audrey?

Over the past few months I watched some of the movies from the (National Lampoon's) Vacation series, in which the (probably 1970s-born) daughter was named Audrey. If you look at that name's popularity graph, you'll see that the 1970s was Audrey's low point between its 1920s-30s peak and its current revival. Although using the name outside its prime generation(s) caught my attention, it doesn't seem too out of place (like Shirley from the 1930s or Isabella from the present would) on a Gen-Xer.

Last fall when the TV series Up All Night premiered they named the baby in the show Amy. Once again, a name used outside its peak generation that catches the attention of some name enthusiasts but is not too far-fetched (although having her mother named Reagan and another character around the same age named Ava makes it seem a bit like they reversed the names).

After comparing the two mild name anachronisms I described above, I think that Amy and Audrey are following two similar but opposite in phase cycles: falling like the other names of the era, but eventually leveling off rather than continuing to fall steeply. Maybe these are signs that Amy will not fall off the radar completely and has a chance of being revived comparatively sooner than many of the other '70s-era names?

Brits are more likely to use a top name than Americans

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 (outdated link)