July 10th, 2024

An Abundance of Katherines: The Game Theory of Baby Naming

The paper delves into baby naming competitiveness through game theory, assuming parents choose names for uniqueness. It suggests future research directions. Accepted at SIGBOVIK 2024, it merges Computer Science, Game Theory, and Society, shedding light on decision-making in baby naming.

Read original articleLink Icon
An Abundance of Katherines: The Game Theory of Baby Naming

The paper titled "An Abundance of Katherines: The Game Theory of Baby Naming" explores the competitive nature of baby naming using game theory. The authors make assumptions about parents being myopic and picking names based solely on uniqueness to create a tractable model. They conduct numerical experiments and analyze large language models to enhance their investigation. The study concludes by suggesting potential avenues for future research in this field. Accepted at SIGBOVIK 2024, the paper falls under the subjects of Computer Science and Game Theory, as well as Computers and Society. The work provides insights into the decision-making process behind baby naming and how game theory can be applied to understand this phenomenon.

Link Icon 29 comments
By @matthewmcg - 5 months
Author listing: Katy Blumer, Kate Donahue, Katie Fritz, Kate Ivanovich, Katherine Lee, Katie Luo, Cathy Meng, Katie Van Koevering

For people unfamiliar with common English names, all of the authors have first names similar to or derived from Katherine.

By @mbil - 5 months
Had a number of sensible chuckles...

> Because this paper was written in 2024, we include an obligatory section involving generative AI and LLMs.

> Another ERA is the Mayfly Parenthood Assumption, in which all parents perish immediately upon naming their child, which makes the math substantially easier.

> It is well-known that parents are always in complete agreement over the name they would prefer to pick for their newborn child.

By @greenyoda - 5 months
Reference [12] suggests that the title of the paper was inspired by a previous work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Abundance_of_Katherines

(Also, the submission date, 31 Mar 2024, suggests that the paper was intended to be published on April Fools Day.)

By @mostertoaster - 5 months
I think wait but why really nailed the theory of baby naming - https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/12/how-to-name-baby.html
By @madcaptenor - 5 months
A paper by Jinseok Kim, Jenna Kim, and Jinmo Kim: "Effect of Chinese characters on machine learning for Chinese author name disambiguation: A counterfactual evaluation" . Obviously the authors don't have Chinese names but I would imagine personally having names that need disambiguating might spur one's interest in this research area. (And they do mention in the paper that it's also an issue for Korean names.)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01655515211018...

By @ryanisnan - 5 months
I knew what we were in for when I read

> ... we create a model which is not only tractable and clean, but also perfectly captures the real world.

Kudos to the authors for a good sense of humour.

By @yesseri - 5 months
> The above model contains several Extremely Reasonable Assumptions (ERAs). [...] Another ERA is the Mayfly Parenthood Assumption, in which all parents perish immediately upon naming their child, which makes the math substantially easier."

This paper is just filled with hilarious quotes.

By @sohamgovande - 5 months
An Abundance of -K̵a̵t̵h̵e̵r̵i̵n̵e̵s̵- K8s, I hear...
By @VyseofArcadia - 5 months
I lay awake at night thinking about the baby naming problem.

I want my child to have a name in the sweet spot. Not too common, not too unique, and, crucially, not a name that is popular for only a brief period so that everyone will know about how old they are just by their given name[0].

But people thinking along these lines inevitably gravitate to the same small handful of names, causing the "too popular for a brief period of time" effect against their will. I've already failed once; my cat is named Olivia, the popular girl's name of the decade, apparently.

[0] My own name is one of those. It's annoying.

By @graton - 5 months
> Submitted on 31 Mar 2024

Almost looks like an April Fools Joke.

> The above model contains several Extremely Reasonable Assumptions (ERAs). The first ERA is the very conservative assumption that there is only one gender, with all children and all names adhering to the same gender. Thus any child may be given any name, so long as it exists in the names list1. Another ERA is the Mayfly Parenthood Assumption, in which all parents perish immediately upon naming their child, which makes the math substantially easier.

By @TacticalCoder - 5 months
> Through making several Extremely Reasonable Assumptions (namely, that parents are myopic, perfectly knowledgeable agents who pick a name based solely on its “uniqueness”)

What a weird assumption. We named our daughter picking four names, starting respectively with the letters 'G', 'A', 'T' and 'C'.

By @WarOnPrivacy - 5 months
35 years ago I knocked up my soon to be wife. We picked out name and opted for a home birth, confident that no other couples had made those same choices.

That birth month, Life magazine featured a full page spread of a home birth (ewwww); their newborn had the same name.

This event is on a list of stuff I/we came to on our own, at the same time as everyone else.

By @gregates - 5 months
If you combine Katherine, Catherine, Kat, Kate, Caty, Katy, Katie, and Katheryn (there are SO MANY variants, but most of them have never been popular), peak popularity for girls in the U.S. in the last century is in 1986 at only 1.8% of baby girls.

That's less popular than the single name Matthew for boys, or any one of Jessica, Ashley, Amanda, or Jennifer, in that same year. I expected it would be higher: my own sister is one of these, and I had a friend circle in my 20s that included a Katie, a Katherine (who went by Kat), a Caitlin, and a Kathryn.

Source: baby name popularity is one of our favorite test data sets at Row Zero, and we do lots of analyses like this for fun, e.g. https://rowzero.io/blog/baby-names-rise-of-n

By @vlark - 5 months
This is an enormous effort for an academic joke article. I am reminded of Upper's classic "The Unsuccessful Self-treatment of a Case of 'Writer's Block'" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311997/pdf/jab...) and Goldberg & Chemjobber's "A Comprehensive Overview of Chemical-free Consumer Products" (https://blogs.nature.com/thescepticalchymist/files/2014/06/n...), not to mention Zongker's "Chicken Chicken Chicken" (https://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf).
By @rsync - 5 months
I live in the bay area.

Between, say, 2012 and 2018 there was a wave of “Ronin”.

I still get a chuckle thinking of these soccer dads, watching from the sidelines, wistfully thinking:

My son … The wayward samurai…

By @poopcat - 5 months
Not going to lie the first thing I thought was, "Why is the John Green book on HN??" I mean, cool, but surprising. Then I read the end and it made more sense ha
By @viridian - 5 months
Naming can be hard, because names are important.

My wife and I legitimately sat down and came up with a list of 50 names we each liked, and from the 98 we had totaled up, we applied a series of different filters to get to an answer over the span of several weeks.

First we each went through the list, and force removed half of them, each of us taking turns eliminating one at a time.

From the remaining 50 we rated them, and removed anything that scored under a 6 from either of us, or under 15 points total.

Then we had 20 left, that we talked through each fairly extensively. We covered etymology, popularity, age association, popular cultural associations, you name it. After that we each removed 5 more.

Once we were down to the top ten, armed with frankly far too much knowledge about these names at this point, we reranked them individually and tallied up the scores.

Two names stood head and shoulders above the rest, one scoring around a 19 total and the other scoring around a 17. Those became our daughter's first and middle names.

By @hooverd - 5 months
You can get baby name data for every n>5 name by year from the SSO: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/limits.html

It's... interesting. More Khaleesis and Gokus than you'd think.

By @HeyLaughingBoy - 5 months
In "The Three Most Important Things in Life," Harlan Ellison refers to "the improbably-named Briony Catling."

I think he was onto something. Never heard of either of those names in the real world.

[edit] OK, so I had to check and I was wrong. Must have been one of his other essays. But for the uninitiated, here you go: https://harlanellison.com/iwrite/mostimp.htm

You're welcome ;-)

By @bradhilton - 5 months
Some parents try to have their cake and eat it too by altering the spelling or pronunciation of otherwise common names, thus ensuring their child both fits in and is unique.

Cheekiness aside, naming our children has been a fun, stressful, but ultimately rewarding endeavor and this paper was very on point.

By @calvinmorrison - 5 months
Like any good Presbyterian, I named my Son after the great Archibald Alexander, the progenitor of Princeton Theological Seminary . Myself, I am named after the great theologian John Calvin.

However, if I have a daughter, I will name her Britney - an anagram for Presbyterians

By @passwordoops - 5 months
If papers came with theme music, this would make a good pairing

https://youtu.be/1nN_5kkYR6k

By @worstspotgain - 5 months
I was going to name my child Seven, Mickey Mantle's number, a great name for a boy or a girl. Then some friends overheard it and stole it for their baby.
By @lacoolj - 5 months
feels like an april fools post based on section 2

> 2 Related works: Surprisingly, no one has ever done any research on naming strategies (so long as you conveniently ignore [4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25] and likely other work).

By @uberdru - 5 months
The three most beautiful names in English: Katherine, Elizabeth, Alexandra. Pure magic.
By @njarboe - 5 months
As a Nick born in the 70's, I thought my world was getting a bit weird as Nick's were poping up everywhere all of a sudden. Then I saw a video on the top ten boy's names from 1880-2020[1] and saw Nicholas pop up in the top ten in 1986, peak at #5 in 1990-1992, and drop off in 2004. I blame Nicholas Cage and Nick Nolte.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7hkR5FUVdc

By @internetguy - 5 months
oh my god this paper is wonderful... had me in tears with laughter note the adorable little dinosaurs!
By @Asparagirl - 5 months
See also the noted 2014 economics paper that studied the phenomenon of co-authorship of economics papers…

“A Few Goodmen: Surname-Sharing Economist Coauthors”

by Allen C. Goodman (Wayne State University), Joshua Goodman (Harvard), Lucas Goodman (UMD), and Sarena Goodman (the Federal Reserve Board)

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/joshuagoodman/files/goodma...