Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

verdantlabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#81

Post by vickytnz »

anonu wrote: post #43

I remember when I joined CMU my Freshman year the big thing was that the previous year there had been more guys named "Dave" that had graduated from Computer Science than women. This kind of reminds me of that. This was circa year 2001.

A comedy channel in the UK decided to rename the channel a few years back. They bandied names around, then someone said. "How about Dave? Everyone knows Dave, Dave's your mate." Dave it was. As it turns out, David has been in the top 3 names from 1954-1994, so reality is if you're a Boomer, Gen X, or Gen Y, you really do know a Dave. (Stats table here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.h...)

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#82

Post by Houshalter »

vickytnz wrote: post #78

Gah, I hate stats that a) don't say where the information comes from b) don't say which part of the world they're talking about (US sites are particularly prone to this). I'm assuming this is from US census data, but it's not particularly obvious. There's a rest of the world, you know.... [EDIT: looking at the app, maybe it is worldwide? Still, referring to things like "Republican" doesn't inspire confidence that it'…

It says the data sources are from the FEC, SSA, and wikipedia.

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#83

Post by vickytnz »

Houshalter wrote: post #82
vickytnz wrote: post #78

Gah, I hate stats that a) don't say where the information comes from b) don't say which part of the world they're talking about (US sites are particularly prone to this). I'm assuming this is from US census data, but it's not particularly obvious. There's a rest of the world, you know.... [EDIT: looking at the app, maybe it is worldwide? Still, referring to things like "Republican" doesn't inspire confidence that it'…

It says the data sources are from the FEC, SSA, and wikipedia.

OK, I missed that, but still, that suggests two US links (not that I can see the actual data, it just links to the homepage), and ... Wikipedia? What does that mean in terms of a data set?

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#84

Post by V-2 »

kornakiewicz wrote: post #68
V-2 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also noticed that in my country (Poland) there's quite more people working in IT with names or surnames which begins on K (Polish word for computer is "komputer") You don't say... :) Perhaps because names starting with K are simply very common in Poland? ;) 1 in 6 out of 100 most popular last names starts with K. And quite more IT employees than whom exactly? Presidents of the country? Since 1989 Poland had: Jaru…

Okay, maybe you're right and I'm just biased with serial killer who killed few software developers with K-name living in Kraków Polish article: http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114873,9855837,Krak...

Wow, now that's interesting :)

By the way, believe it or not, I do work as a programmer (in Poland), and my first name does indeed start with K :) Not the last name though, so I feel safe.

While the serial killer theory could boil down to a statistical oddity, it reminded me of this novel by Lem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Investigation

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#85

Post by dghughes »

theorique wrote: post #69
dghughes wrote: post #67

I visited a fire station in the country in my province a few years ago and on the wall were names of the volunteers. Nearly every one was John Gallant, the surname is very common and it's a small community. The funny thing is the surname is so common people have nicknames such as John 'Rabbit' Gallant but that name becomes so well-known his son will be called Rabbit Jr. So the plaque is full of a wild mix of actual s…

PEI?

Of course!

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#86

Post by emodendroket »

Retra wrote: post #74
Lambdanaut wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard mentioned in books on psychology before about this effect, and it seems at least from a clinical perspective, that people do tend to choose their professions based on their names. I'm sorry I can't provide sources.

We would expect people to also tend to choose their names based on their parents, as well as choosing their jobs based on their upbringing.

That's obvious, but I would hope the psychologists purportedly studying this topic thought of that when they designed their experiment.

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#87

Post by emodendroket »

radicalbyte wrote: post #72
adevine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't appear incorrect to me. The blurb on the graph says "For example, a higher percentage of Elwoods are farmers than of most any other name." As I read it, it means that, say, 1% of Elwoods become farmers, while only .1% of Steves are farmers. That is, if your name is Elwood, you are much more likely to be a farmer than if your name is anything else.

That's Nominative Determinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism Think someone called Crapper being a toilet salesman, or Smith being a Blacksmith, Baker being a Baker etc. I.e. a funny non-science based upon misunderstanding historical coincidence (profession being used as surnames, family marketing name being used as a crass synoniem for something else) with causation.

What? No it isn't. They're talking about given names, for one thing. For another, unless I missed it, they aren't positing a reason for this; they are simply saying which given names have more people in a given profession than would be expected based on averages.

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#88

Post by emodendroket »

coherentpony wrote: post #34
adevine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't appear incorrect to me. The blurb on the graph says "For example, a higher percentage of Elwoods are farmers than of most any other name." As I read it, it means that, say, 1% of Elwoods become farmers, while only .1% of Steves are farmers. That is, if your name is Elwood, you are much more likely to be a farmer than if your name is anything else.

What you're implying here is that correlation implies causation. If 99% of farmers are Elwoods, you can't claim that one's name being Elwood means one is more likely to become a farmer.

Do we have to write comments here as though we're writing the final draft of a math textbook? What's meant is clear enough.

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#89

Post by Crito »

learnstats2 wrote: post #75
V-2 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Name inequality represents clear evidence against the existence of a meritocracy. Meritocracy in what sense? Coming from wealthier background, you're more likely to be well educated. While we may dislike that it is so, it doesn't mean there's no meritocracy in the sense that employers don't hire people based on their qualifications alone. Only that they don't care where these qualifications come from.

> Coming from wealthier background, you're more likely to be well educated. So, by your admission, education is not meritocratic. I claim that employment is non-meritocratic first by your measure: if access to a better education is not merited, then employers concentrating on qualifications alone are not hiring according to merit. I claim also that employment is non-meritocratic independently. The most obvious exampl…

I don't think anybody claims that higher education in the US is a meritocracy.

When people on HN talk about the meritocracy as though it is something that exists, they are talking about it in the tech industry, not in the education system that precedes it.

Re: Disproportionately Common Names by Profession

#90

Post by emodendroket »

Camillo wrote: post #9

This is worthless unless they correct for age. Which they most likely don't, since age is not even mentioned in the post.

"Worthless" in what sense? If we want to know something in particular, maybe, but perhaps knowing that people who have a certain job tend to be older is of interest? Some jobs seem to have entirely female names in the chart; is the fact that women are apparently significantly overrepresented in those fields also "worthless?"
Post reply on HN