tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post3672933781231199134..comments2024-03-27T14:20:05.905-04:00Comments on Montclair SocioBlog: Charting the ClimbJay Livingstonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06652075579940313964noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post-49668947512223293352012-08-10T02:15:47.733-04:002012-08-10T02:15:47.733-04:00Max and Jay,
Lieberson doesn't find any consis...Max and Jay,<br />Lieberson doesn't find any consistent evidence for Simmelian fashion cycles in names. However see Berger and LeMens for backlash to name fads.gabrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01508432712944817963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post-78501739517190738012012-08-09T22:16:01.383-04:002012-08-09T22:16:01.383-04:00Max, If the Freaks are right (and I think they are...Max, If the Freaks are right (and I think they are) that fashions in names diffuse downward, then they should follow the endogenous S-shaped curve because the process is endogenous – people get their ideas about names from what other people have named their kids, and there are fewer people in the elite than in the masses. The elites are ahead of the curve, but only if the masses follow. When the sophisticated Clintons, in 1980, named their daughter Chelsea, that name ranked 400 or so. But in the next ten years, it zoomed to 24. I don’t know if there were celebrity Chelseas – an exogenous factor -- emerging in those years. Chelsea Clinton seems not to have had much of an impact. The year she became First Kid was the height of that name’s popularity (rank 15). As she was becoming more known, the name was slipping in popularity. (Sasha and Malia jumped 100 and 150 places, respectively, their first year in the White House, but then slid back to where they had been.)<br /><br />Note that the name graphs are different. The box office graphs , the song graphs in Gabriel’s book, and most diffusion graphs show cumulative numbers. There is a finite population, and the graphs show the paths to the asymptote. The name graphs, by contrast, show the number per year. A graph of cumulative Madisons and Isabellas would be a gentler upward slope – the first stages of the S-curve, but it’s still too early for them to show the leveling off. Presumably, a name that is now a decade or two past its sell-by date (e.g., Chelsea) would show the entire S-curve.Jay Livingstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06652075579940313964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post-55594321121640625022012-08-09T21:13:25.505-04:002012-08-09T21:13:25.505-04:00So would the Freakonomics theory of baby names dif...So would the Freakonomics theory of baby names diffusing from upper-class to the unwashed masses corroborate the convex endogenous growth curve? I keep meaning to go back and check whether their predictions held true (I assume they've probably done this on their blog, but don't remember what the result was).maxlivinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04406921986017961980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post-25038002321707317312012-08-09T16:26:35.040-04:002012-08-09T16:26:35.040-04:00Hi Jay,
Thanks for the very thoughtful review. FW...Hi Jay,<br /><br />Thanks for the very thoughtful review. FWIW, I've always agreed with you that "Jacob" and "Isabella" are in Twilight because they're popular names, not the other way around.<br /><br />Also, I've got my own post on baby names half-written and your post has given me some motivation to finish it.gabrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01508432712944817963noreply@blogger.com