I just came across an eyebrow-raising list. Among my library of baby name books is one that my mother had when I was a child, entitled The Best Baby Name Book in the Whole Wide World by Bruce and Vicky Lansky. Among their lists, they cite a study which determined that children with “desirable” names had higher IQs than those with “undesirable” ones. Sadly, the book does not say when the study was done, but the publishing date of the book is 1979. These are how the names were parsed out according to this study:
DESIRABLE NAMES
Barbara, Carol, Cindy, Diane, Dorothy, Jane, Jean, Karen, Lisa, Virginia
Craig, David, James, Jonathan, John, Michael, Patrick, Richard, Robert, Thomas
UNDESIRABLE NAMES
Bertha, Bridget, Gillian, Hallie, Hillary, Lola Mae, Mildred, Phoebe, Risa, Simone
Albert, Bernard, Curtis, Darrell, Elmer, Gerald, Horace, Hubert, Jerome, Maurice
With few exceptions, I can see the desirability of the girls’ lists exactly switched today. I’ve run into delightful girls with all the names on the undesirable list except for Bertha and Mildred. The boys’ list of undesirables is still fairly spot on, though I do have a soft spot for Albert, Bernard, Jerome, and Maurice. Also note how current many of the boys’ choices remain in the desirables category. It looks as if this study was likely based on the children of the 1950s, with some of the “desirable” names carried over from the previous generation.
Of course the study’s conceit is offensive in the first place. The notion that a child’s name might effect his or her IQ is dicey, at best. It may be that parents of a certain education level choose names to some degree according to their class. IQ tests also have a measure of subjectivity. Like teachers who grade papers, the tester may be influenced by the name on the form. There also may be a degree of racism in this study, which would not be far-fetched for the 1950s. Names like Jerome and Maurice have a time-honored history, and have been favored by the African-American community in the twentieth century.
Based on the above list, a similar list by today’s standards might look something like this:
DESIRABLES
Ava, Brianna, Camryn, Ella, Emma, Hallie, Kayla, Kelsey, Madison, Madelyn
Aidan, Brandon, Cooper, Ethan, Hayden, Jacob, Jackson, Logan, Max, Sebastian
UNDESIRABLES
Bernice, Brunhilda, Charlize, D’Shay, Ermintrude, Hortense, Lacy, Norma, Questia, Wanda
Abner, Buck, Darrell, Dick, Fitzroy, Herman, Hubert, Ichabod, Igor, Oedipus
It just goes to show how popular names of the times truly date a person. While some of the well-liked names from the study, Jane, Virginia, David, and James among them, sound equally attractive today, you’d be hard-pressed to find a little Karen or Barbara I’d imagine. As names rise in popularity, they become familiar and generally well-liked. They reach a saturation point and then generally follow a downward spiral until no one is using them, and they sound “old”, or “undesirable.” All of this of course leads into the old lady and old man chic trends, which are playing tug-o-war with the K, Y, and -aden names of late. Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the babynamer.
WHAT WOULD YOU PUT ON YOUR LIST?
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
I love Hubert! It means “bright heart and mind”. That covers a lot of territory!
I’m rather afraid to deem any poor kid’s name as undesirable. But I suppose my “desirables” might go something like this:
Abigail, Addison, Alyssa, Alex, Avery, Aubrey, Elle, Bailey, Brooklyn, Caroline, Charlotte, Destiny, Gianna, Halle, Hannah, Isabella, Jada, Kayla, Kaylee, Katelyn, Lacy, Lily, Mackenzie, Mia, Megan, Morgan, Natalie, Olivia, Riley, Savannah, Shelby, Sophia, Taylor, Trinity, Zoe
Aidon, Alex, Austin, Braedan, Cade, Caleb, Carson, Chase, Christian, Cody, Connor, Damien, Diego, Dylan, Gabriel, Gavin, Jack, Jayden, Kyle, Liam, Logan, Lucas, Luis, Matthew, Michael, Nicholas, Noah, Ryan, Shane, Tristan, Tyler, Vincent, William, Wyatt, Zachary
I almost didn’t post Modern Day Undesirables. Keep in mind these are only hypottheticals that could be used for a study. Should I remove them?
I agree this is a touchy subject. And could potentially be offensive. That being said, my list:
desirable (though I don’t personally like most of these names, I think that the majority of people would think higher IQ with these):Isabel/Isabella, Ava, Olivia, Sophia/Sophie, Mia/Mya, Grace, Lily, Madeline, Emily, Violet
Ethan, Noah, Logan, Aiden, Elijah, Owen, Isaiah, Colin, Liam, Caleb
undesirable (most of these names are just old and really could come back some day…):Beulah, Ethel, Helga, Charlene, Patsy, Irma, Dorcas, Doris, Joyce, Mildred
Arnold, Delbert, Gomer, Herman, Sheldon, Wilbur, Enos, D’Shawn, Elmer, Millard
Funny, I know a little Irma, and think Mildred and Enos and Arnold have real potential!
Hate to feed the best. Should I remove modern day undesirables?
Well, it’s obvious you were thinking the same thing — not too many Brunhildas, Ermintrudes, Ichabods or Oedipi that I can see. I think people with a Great Aunt Bernice or Uncle Buck might be offended though ; )
I disagree actually.
I think someone named Norma or Oedipus is far more likely to have a higher I.Q than someone named Hayden or Camryn.
A parent who chooses a classic name for their child (in my opinion) is more likely to have a higher I.Q than a parent who chooses a “Trendee” name for their kid, therefore in turn their kids will be smarter.
Haha just my way of looking at it.
I agree that some of the names I listed are better than others, and may have potential to one day be more, but for the most part, I think that they are not as desired. (And, for what it’s worth, I’ve listed names of people in my own family who are very dear to me…but I have to admit their name leaves a lot to be desired.)
Also, I somewhat like Ichabod, haha, as well as Abner. But, I would be the first (or perhaps second) to say that they typically aren’t names that most people want to use now-a-days.
Alicia, I think you, Elisabeth and I pretty much did the same thing. I guess we’re all trying to be sensitive to the feelings of someone who might find their name or their child’s name on the undesirable list. Of course we’re all bound to have at least a few friends and family members
with some names, probably dated and not scheduled to make any comebacks any time soon, because they’re atrocious!
I am, however, interested in the premise for the original post here: How and to what extent do names predispose children to succeed? Does having a “favorable” name encourage intelligence in a child? Do “good” names merely imply good home environments and bright parents or do they also provide a mirror for the child to see a face bathed in sunlight smiling back instead of a shaded, frowning face? I wonder whether there have been any more recent studies done, and, if so, which names were in play? Also, informally speaking, which names does everybody think might indicate the most potential to succeed in the eyes of teachers, parents, children, and the world at large?
Natalie, I actually think you and I are for the most part, in agreement. The post was meant to be about the desirability of a name in the eyes of the general public, rather than the actual IQ of a person.
I don’t agree with the study itself nor do I agree with the names they chose, I was merely trying to recreate the “desirable” factor based on the level of popularity of names like Carol, Lisa, Barbara, and Craig. The point I was attempting to make was actually about how dated the names sound now, and also how arbitrary associations, sadly, can sometimes scew people’s view of a person. I tried to find names that are popular now, and unlikely to be popular in fifty years to prove a point.
I do agree that if I were to come across a little Norma or Hubert (not so sure about Oedipus), they might well be from a highly educated family. I also thought it was interesting that we are hearing a lot of names on the “undesirable” list from the first study– Phoebe, Lola, Simone, Bridget, Gillian, Bernard and Albert are all names I have either seen being tossed around or on an actual child (or several). Perhaps I should have made myself more clear.
Alicia, I think you made a fantastic list! Better than mine. Just had to throw out a little love for Enos.
Ah i see what you mean.
Yes it is funny how times change!
Natalie, there are a lot of rabbit trails to go down with this post (as Mummie so aptly pointed out). I’m not surprised you took it that way, but I’m glad we’re all clear now.
FWIW, I intentionally made my modern “desirables” list of names that appeal to me personally and those that might less, again, in an effort to mirror my impression of this study.
Mummie, I’m mulling over your questions…
Mummie, I removed your last comments because I believe they crossed a line. I hope you and our other readers understand.
~Elisabeth, YCCII Moderator
Sorry, but I was just trying to illustrate the carelessness of some people. I didn’t mean to cross the line, just to draw a line that connects the careless way they bring up their children with the seemingly careless way they name them. I realize I was a bit rude!
I don’t think that connection is fair, to the child or to the parent. I do think that some choices have more history or meaning, but in no way would I ever want to cast aspersions on a child simply because I did not approve of their name.
I brought this subject up with my husband the other day. We’ve raised 9 children — 2 born to us and 7 adopted from 6 different sets of parents (2 are siblings). We’ve come to believe that a lot of personality traits and *range* of intelligence are present at birth, but that also the sort of parenting (or lack there of) a child grows up with greatly affects the outcome. My husband made the point that the name study (which appears to be undocumented in Lansky’s 1979 name book of 1979) may be confusing ’cause’ with ‘correlation’. It may be that, as some have said here, parents who find a certain style of names appealing may be somewhat alike in socio-economic background. I personally think those who choose to ‘create’ a new spelling for their child’s name (or use a non-standard spelling they’ve seen somewhere) or some ‘cutesy’ name of the moment are often from a different background than those who choose established names spelled correctly. Thus, it may that children named certain names that seem undesirable have less opportunities in their homes than those in other groups, who may do better in school.
I have a later version of Lansky’s book (revised 2004) in which he no longer discusses names as indicating higher or lower IQs but “The Impressions Names Make”. I find his categories rather amusing, e.g. Girls-Positive Images “Francesca (European, exciting); Roxanne (feminine, enthusiastic); Steffi (cute, free spirited, athletic); Girls-Negative Images include Matilda (bossy, big), Merry (self-centered, shallow); etc. Boys-Positive includes Bart (athletic, assertive); Bud (cheerful, good personality): Dmitri (handsome, sexy); Boys-Negative includes Bruno (rough, mean, stupid); Wally (henpecked, mild mannered), etc. In this case, Lansky says the data come from a survey of over 100,000 parents.
One last comment, I don’t find Lansky’s book to be “The Very Best Baby Name Book in the World”!
Oh dear. There is Joyce again! on the Undesirable List! (my middle name, and my mother’s name). I said to my mother the other day that she should have called me Ailsa Jocelyn rather than Ailsa Joyce, as my parents’ names are Joyce and Glyn, so would have combined them both with a name that was Not on the Undesirable List!
sigh.