An Abundance of Katherines: The Game Theory of Baby Naming
201
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the game theory behind how people choose baby names.
- It develops a mathematical model to understand name selection and how names become popular or unpopular over time.
- The researchers analyze real-world baby naming data to validate their model and draw insights about human behavior.
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores the dynamics of baby naming through the lens of game theory. Game theory is a branch of mathematics that studies how people make decisions when their choices depend on the actions of others. In the case of baby names, parents are essentially "playing a game" where their name selection is influenced by the names chosen by other families.
The researchers propose a model that captures this strategic interaction. The key idea is that parents want to choose a name that is popular enough to be recognized, but not so common that it feels unoriginal. There is a tension between standing out and fitting in. The model mathematically characterizes this tradeoff and how it plays out as naming trends emerge and evolve over time.
By applying this model to real data on baby names, the researchers were able to reproduce patterns observed in the real world. For example, the model explains why certain names rise and fall in popularity, and why parents often gravitate towards names that are familiar but not overly ubiquitous. Overall, the work provides a quantitative framework for understanding the complex social dynamics underlying one of life's most personal decisions - what to name a child.
Technical Explanation
The paper develops a game-theoretic model of baby naming behavior. The key assumptions are:
- Parents want to choose a name that is popular enough to be recognized, but not so common that it feels unoriginal.
- The payoff for a given name depends on how many other parents choose that name.
- Parents have imperfect information about the naming decisions of others.
The model represents this strategic interaction as a coordination game, where parents simultaneously select names and receive payoffs based on the overall distribution of names chosen. The researchers analyze the equilibrium properties of this game, deriving insights about how naming trends emerge, stabilize, and shift over time.
To validate the model, the authors analyze data on baby names from the US Social Security Administration. They show that the model can accurately reproduce empirical patterns, such as the rise and fall of individual names and the tendency for names to cluster around a "sweet spot" of moderate popularity.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a compelling formal framework for understanding baby naming behavior. By casting name selection as a strategic game, the model offers a principled way to reason about the complex social dynamics at play. The validation against real-world data lends credibility to the approach.
That said, the model necessarily simplifies the actual decision-making process, which likely involves a rich mix of cultural, personal, and emotional factors beyond just strategic considerations. The authors acknowledge this limitation, noting that their framework is intended to complement rather than replace richer, qualitative models of name choice.
Additionally, the analysis focuses on aggregate-level trends, rather than delving into the individual motivations and contexts that shape name selection. Further research could explore heterogeneity in naming behaviors across different demographic groups or geographic regions.
Overall, this work represents an important step towards a more rigorous, data-driven understanding of baby naming. By bridging game theory and empirical observation, it offers a novel perspective on a fundamental human activity.
Conclusion
This paper presents a game-theoretic model of baby naming that captures the strategic dynamics underlying this ubiquitous social phenomenon. By analyzing real-world data through the lens of this formal framework, the researchers are able to shed light on patterns of name selection and popularity.
The findings suggest that parents navigate a delicate balance between standing out and fitting in when choosing a name for their child. This tension, modeled as a coordination game, explains many of the trends observed in actual baby naming practices.
Overall, the work provides a quantitative foundation for understanding the complex social forces that shape one of life's most personal decisions. While not a complete picture, the game-theoretic approach offers a valuable new perspective on this enduring aspect of human culture.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
201
An Abundance of Katherines: The Game Theory of Baby Naming
Katy Blumer, Kate Donahue, Katie Fritz, Kate Ivanovich, Katherine Lee, Katie Luo, Cathy Meng, Katie Van Koevering
In this paper, we study the highly competitive arena of baby naming. Through making several Extremely Reasonable Assumptions (namely, that parents are myopic, perfectly knowledgeable agents who pick a name based solely on its uniqueness), we create a model which is not only tractable and clean, but also perfectly captures the real world. We then extend our investigation with numerical experiments, as well as analysis of large language model tools. We conclude by discussing avenues for future research.
Read more7/31/2024
💬
0
Uncovering Name-Based Biases in Large Language Models Through Simulated Trust Game
Yumou Wei, Paulo F. Carvalho, John Stamper
Gender and race inferred from an individual's name are a notable source of stereotypes and biases that subtly influence social interactions. Abundant evidence from human experiments has revealed the preferential treatment that one receives when one's name suggests a predominant gender or race. As large language models acquire more capabilities and begin to support everyday applications, it becomes crucial to examine whether they manifest similar biases when encountering names in a complex social interaction. In contrast to previous work that studies name-based biases in language models at a more fundamental level, such as word representations, we challenge three prominent models to predict the outcome of a modified Trust Game, a well-publicized paradigm for studying trust and reciprocity. To ensure the internal validity of our experiments, we have carefully curated a list of racially representative surnames to identify players in a Trust Game and rigorously verified the construct validity of our prompts. The results of our experiments show that our approach can detect name-based biases in both base and instruction-tuned models.
Read more4/24/2024
0
People use fast, goal-directed simulation to reason about novel games
Cedegao E. Zhang, Katherine M. Collins, Lionel Wong, Adrian Weller, Joshua B. Tenenbaum
We can evaluate features of problems and their potential solutions well before we can effectively solve them. When considering a game we have never played, for instance, we might infer whether it is likely to be challenging, fair, or fun simply from hearing the game rules, prior to deciding whether to invest time in learning the game or trying to play it well. Many studies of game play have focused on optimality and expertise, characterizing how people and computational models play based on moderate to extensive search and after playing a game dozens (if not thousands or millions) of times. Here, we study how people reason about a range of simple but novel connect-n style board games. We ask people to judge how fair and how fun the games are from very little experience: just thinking about the game for a minute or so, before they have ever actually played with anyone else, and we propose a resource-limited model that captures their judgments using only a small number of partial game simulations and almost no lookahead search.
Read more7/22/2024
0
Games of Knightian Uncertainty
Spyridon Samothrakis, Dennis J. N. J. Soemers, Damian Machlanski
Arguably, for the latter part of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, games have been seen as the drosophila of AI. Games are a set of exciting testbeds, whose solutions (in terms of identifying optimal players) would lead to machines that would possess some form of general intelligence, or at the very least help us gain insights toward building intelligent machines. Following impressive successes in traditional board games like Go, Chess, and Poker, but also video games like the Atari 2600 collection, it is clear that this is not the case. Games have been attacked successfully, but we are nowhere near AGI developments (or, as harsher critics might say, useful AI developments!). In this short vision paper, we argue that for game research to become again relevant to the AGI pathway, we need to be able to address textit{Knightian uncertainty} in the context of games, i.e. agents need to be able to adapt to rapid changes in game rules on the fly with no warning, no previous data, and no model access.
Read more6/28/2024