Lieberson is still the best theory of fashion. Audit studies are the best theory of other people’s ears. Neither is a baby-picking algorithm.
There is no reputable finding that a lucky stroke count improves outcomes.
Findings
- Lieberson — Parents chase distinction inside a style
They avoid last year’s exact peak and copy its neighbours — taste, not virtue.
- Bertrand & Mullainathan — Hearers will stereotype the name
A fact to know; not a commandment to assimilate.
- Social Security Administration — Long-run U.S. bands
Mary’s multi-decade lead for girls (1880–1961 in many years) is a documented band, not a live tip.
- Office for National Statistics — 2010s England & Wales
Oliver and Olivia were frequent leaders in several 2010s releases — cite those years.
- Statistics Korea — Public Korean frequencies
Parents can see hanja vs native-Korean cycles by year without treating ranks as fate.
- Laham et al. — Fluency affects strangers
Easier names are liked more in labs — one small input among many.
Mechanisms
- Two-parent bargaining — Each adult brings kin, sound and class ears.
- Social preview — Telling a sister early is a taste test and a leak risk.
- Legal filter — The registrar can veto after the emotional decision.
- Future nickname gravity — The baby name you pick is also the short form the playground will invent.
Debates
- Honour vs. uniqueness — The central parental fight in many families.
- Should statistics offices publish ranks? — They help research and also intensify fashion anxiety.
- Is it fair to give a hard heritage name? — A values question about correction labour; not a scientific fail.
Science can describe the social weather. It cannot tell you the name of your child.