Comments on: Baby names suggest that cultural trends are abandoned more readily the quicker they catch on

By: Bounty2009

Bounty2009 — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:42:57 +0000

Interesting stuff! I'll be sure to share this with all the other mums at http://my.bounty.com/forums/ as i think they would all be really interested! x

By: Karrasko

Karrasko — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:14:55 +0000

I would never have said that babies name could be fashion. This has surprised me. These kind of research should be improved for more parameters I think. These are few to take out conclusions. http://esns.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/ESS_BILBAO

By: Eric Lund

Eric Lund — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:03:56 +0000

Lilian: Freakonomics had a chapter on the subject of baby names in which they showed, at least in California, a systematic difference in upper and lower class baby names. What typically happens, at least among whites, is that a name will catch on with the upper classes first and then move down the socioeconomic scale with time. This model correctly predicted the recent rise of Emily in popularity as a girl’s name: it became popular with rich families first, then became mainstream. Eventually the faddishness does become a put-off, since no parent wants their little Emily to be one of the half dozen Emilys in her class at school. There is a different dynamic for names that are considered to be identifiably black: those names tend to start out lower class and remain lower class. The authors of Freakonomics speculate that the differentiation of “black” and “white” names is one of the longest lasting legacies of the 1960s/early 1970s Black Power movement.

By: Lilian Nattel

Lilian Nattel — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:05:24 +0000

I also wonder whether there is a class bias in choosing names. Are newly popular names seen as associated with a particular class or is it just the fact that its faddish a put-off for middle & upper classes?