I find this article interesting:
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/10-baby-names-dying-america-mildred-pauline#&_intcmp=fnhpriver_21
Of the ten names they list as "going extinct", nine of those are female names and one is a male name. (I say this without shame, and without fear of offending the non-binaries.)
At the bottom of the article there is a short paragraph of the ten most popular names. Nine of those are male names and one is a female name. The exact opposite of above.
The US birth rate of males vs. females is about equal (very slightly tilted towards more males). So the "going extinct" and "most popular" name trends are not due to differing birth rates. I'm guessing that there are simply more different female names than male names to start with? Maybe guys just keep recycling the same old names and girls have more variety in their names? I can indeed attest to my three man organic chemistry lab group in college containing David, David and David. That was kind of embarrassing actually. We looked at each other and said "We suck!"
Maybe a bigger name pool for females dilutes how many times any specific name will be chosen, making it more likely that one of them will be picked off for extinction? And the smaller pool of male names means that each name will be used more often, so it artificially appears "more popular"?
Anyway, this article just seemed kind of intriguing to me.
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/10-baby-names-dying-america-mildred-pauline#&_intcmp=fnhpriver_21
Of the ten names they list as "going extinct", nine of those are female names and one is a male name. (I say this without shame, and without fear of offending the non-binaries.)
At the bottom of the article there is a short paragraph of the ten most popular names. Nine of those are male names and one is a female name. The exact opposite of above.
The US birth rate of males vs. females is about equal (very slightly tilted towards more males). So the "going extinct" and "most popular" name trends are not due to differing birth rates. I'm guessing that there are simply more different female names than male names to start with? Maybe guys just keep recycling the same old names and girls have more variety in their names? I can indeed attest to my three man organic chemistry lab group in college containing David, David and David. That was kind of embarrassing actually. We looked at each other and said "We suck!"
Maybe a bigger name pool for females dilutes how many times any specific name will be chosen, making it more likely that one of them will be picked off for extinction? And the smaller pool of male names means that each name will be used more often, so it artificially appears "more popular"?
Anyway, this article just seemed kind of intriguing to me.