- Environmental Sciences - May 24
Intel invests in UK institute to create Global Centre for Research in Sustainable Connected Cities - Literature - May 24
Queen Victoria's personal journals put online - Agronomy - May 24
Diagnostic labs analyze anything from bugs to toenails - Medicine - May 24
UCLA launches first face transplantation program in western U.S - Environmental Sciences - May 24
Road2Science: Researching Stronger, Safer, Smarter Infrastructure - Physics - May 24
Get ready for the transit of Venus! - Medicine - May 24
Hormone Plays Surprise Role in Fighting Skin Infections - Business - May 24
Engineering a better society - Law - May 24
Latest UT/Texas Tribune Poll: Tax Pledge Issue Reveals Conservative Divide - Medicine - May 24
Device may inject a variety of drugs without using needles - Medicine - May 24
Stopping drug- induced liver injury - Medicine - May 24
Penn Offers Benefits- tax Offset to Same- sex Couples - Environmental Sciences - May 24
Lighting control system at U-M saves energy and costs - Life Sciences - May 24
UC San Diego Receives $7 Million from DOD for Innovative Neural Research - Social Sciences - May 24
Better response plans needed for children exposed to domestic violence - Physics - May 24
Exotic particles, chilled and trapped, form giant matter wave
By category
AdministrationChemistry
Physics
Computer Science
Environmental Sciences
Earth Sciences
Life Sciences
Medicine
Business
Literature
History
Psychology
Social Sciences
» » more
The decline of David and Mary: New inventiveness driving the diversification of popular culture
20 February 2012 - BRISTOL

So, does globalization bring people together or drive them apart? Our study suggests it does both. Globalization makes it even easier for us to copy each other, but also increases our motivation to be original. The combination results in local social groups that grow apart through the inventiveness that occurs within them.
Professor Alex Bentley and Professor Paul Ormerod analyzed naming trends in the US over the past 130 years. They found that while parents in the early 1900s chose from only a few thousand different names, by 2009 that number had grown to tens of thousands. The variety of names given to children increased markedly in the past fifty years.
Using a statistical model, the researchers showed how these new levels of invention foster cultural differences across the country. When inventiveness was still low in 1960, Mary was the most popular girls’ names in most US states, and David or James was the most popular boys’ name. By 2009, when inventiveness had tripled, this homogeneity was broken up considerably. The dominance of Mary gave way to a patchwork of multiple competing girls’ names and the geography of boys’ names became even more diverse with over a dozen different boys’ names being the most popular in different US states.
The study addresses the paradox of why differences persist in an era of globalization. Naming practices reflect ubiquitous copying in human social behaviour. Still, original independent invention of names persists among less than ten per cent of a population. This persistent minority of independent inventors injects new variation for those in the majority to copy.
The research showed that small increases in the inventive minority can strongly amplify the differences that emerge between states in terms of what becomes most popular. By 2009, for example, the most popular boys’ names in the Midwestern state of Minnesota - Logan - wasn’t even in the top 30 in the coastal states of California and New Jersey.
The researchers found that naming inventiveness has risen dramatically in just the past generation. The speed of innovation accelerated substantially from the late 1980s, increasing the geographic diversity of names across the US. This suggests that increased inventiveness can drive ’cultural drift’ where small differences (introduced through local inventions) get amplified through people copying each other locally. This accelerated innovation, the researchers suggest, leads to a more heterogeneous cultural landscape, even in the midst of growing globalization.
Another factor at play is the recent decline of monolithic mass media to a multiplicity of media sources, including the online social media in which many people now participate.
Professor Bentley said: "As individuals copy each other through social media, rather than responding to centralized media, there can be stronger consensus in each local social group but more diversification between those groups globally. Names are only one example, of course, but this phenomenon suggests a way in which the interconnectedness of ’globalization’ - a word that tends to connote homogeneity - may instead promote cultural diversity by allowing random drift to occur more pervasively.
"So, does globalization bring people together or drive them apart? Our study suggests it does both. Globalization makes it even easier for us to copy each other, but also increases our motivation to be original. The combination results in local social groups that grow apart through the inventiveness that occurs within them."
Paper
’Accelerated innovation and increased spatial diversity of US popular culture’ by R. Alexander Bentley and Paul Ormerod in Advances in Complex Systems (ACS)
Baby names in 1960 and 2009
In 1960, the most popular name given to baby girls was Mary in almost every US state except for those in the Northwest and Northeast where Susan predominated. There was also some variety (Lori, Julie, Donna, Karen, Lisa) in some of the Western states. This homogeneity was also reflected in boys’ names, where the five that were locally most popular (David, James, Michael, John, Robert) comprised the top five for most states, and none was lower than 8th place in any state. There was also a clear geography to the boys’ names in 1960: David was most popular in almost all states west of the Mississippi, James was most popular in the South, and John and Michael dominated the Northeast.
By 2009, the popularity of Mary had given way to multiple competing girls’ names (Isabella, Emma, Olivia, Addison, Ava, Madison), and the geography of boys’ names had become even more diverse (Aiden, Ethan, Jacob, Alexander, Anthony, Daniel, Jayden, William, Michael, Logan, Noah, Jose and Wyatt). Among boys’ names, some continuity remained in the South (where William replaced James) and Northeast (where Michael gained), but west of the Mississippi the geographic pattern had dissolved into a mosaic.
"So, does globalization bring people together or drive them apart? Our study suggests it does both. Globalization makes it even easier for us to copy each other, but also increases our motivation to be original. The combination results in local social groups that grow apart through the inventiveness that occurs within them."
Paper
’Accelerated innovation and increased spatial diversity of US popular culture’ by R. Alexander Bentley and Paul Ormerod in Advances in Complex Systems (ACS)
Baby names in 1960 and 2009
In 1960, the most popular name given to baby girls was Mary in almost every US state except for those in the Northwest and Northeast where Susan predominated. There was also some variety (Lori, Julie, Donna, Karen, Lisa) in some of the Western states. This homogeneity was also reflected in boys’ names, where the five that were locally most popular (David, James, Michael, John, Robert) comprised the top five for most states, and none was lower than 8th place in any state. There was also a clear geography to the boys’ names in 1960: David was most popular in almost all states west of the Mississippi, James was most popular in the South, and John and Michael dominated the Northeast.
By 2009, the popularity of Mary had given way to multiple competing girls’ names (Isabella, Emma, Olivia, Addison, Ava, Madison), and the geography of boys’ names had become even more diverse (Aiden, Ethan, Jacob, Alexander, Anthony, Daniel, Jayden, William, Michael, Logan, Noah, Jose and Wyatt). Among boys’ names, some continuity remained in the South (where William replaced James) and Northeast (where Michael gained), but west of the Mississippi the geographic pattern had dissolved into a mosaic.
Last job offers
- Civil Engineering - 24.5
Wissensch. Assistent/in MINERGIE® Agentur Bau (80–100 %) - Agronomy - 22.5
Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter/in Koordination Agrar-Umweltindikatoren - Social Sciences - 21.5
wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin/ wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter - Electroengineering - 21.5
Sektionsleiter/in - Electroengineering - 21.5
Elektroingenieur/in FH - Life Sciences - 17.5
Hochschulabsolventen (m/w) Fachrichtungen Biologie, Mikrobiologie, Bio-Informatik... - Medicine - 25.5
Chair of Paediatrics (Associate Professor-Professor) - Earth Sciences - 24.5
2012-05-24 at the Department of Geological Sciences. Reference number SU 612-1718-12. Deadline for applications:... - Pedagogy - 24.5
Professur für Erziehungswissenschaft (Allgemeine Pädagogik) - Pedagogy - 24.5
Schulpädagogik (mit dem Schwerpunkten Schulforschung und Allgemeine Didaktik) - Medicine - 24.5
Chair in Bacteriology - YMS360A - Business - 24.5
Associate Professor in Operations Management - Business - 23.5
Full, Assoc, or Asst. Professor in Marketing - Life Sciences - 23.5
Open Rank Professor - Pathology & Lab Med




» Share this page: