JamesAndrix comments on What's In A Name? - Less Wrong

41 Post author: Yvain 29 June 2009 12:54PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (132)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 29 June 2009 05:44:15PM 7 points [-]

That's it, I'm naming my first child Utility.

A more useful application of this might be to assign people temporary names during hypothetical role playing to influence how they behave or what lessons they take away. I see this as a subtler version of what happened in the Stanford prison experiment. It would certainly reinforce the process: making someone a guard is one thing, what if they were given the a badge labeled "Lt. Punisher"?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 June 2009 12:41:07AM 3 points [-]

I'm naming my first child Utility.

Okay... just going by the sound of the syllables, it doesn't sound that bad... but I really don't know what that would do to the kid's life, y'know what I'm saying?

I once met a kid named Vanyel. I asked him if he was named after Vanyel Ashkevron. He said "Yes". "Cool," I said, and I meant it, but I was also thinking "What the hell were his parents thinking, naming him after the most famous gay character in all of fantasy?" It's not that it's a bad name for an adult to take for themselves, but it's not really the sort of decision you should make for a child.

Comment author: brian_jaress 30 June 2009 08:30:37AM *  4 points [-]

Well, going by the study, I guess Utility will end up working for a power company and maybe living in Utah. Vanyel will end up in some job where he drives a van in Vermont.

Or rather, they'll have a slightly increased chance of doing so.

Realistically, people will think Vanyel is a foreign name. Same for Utility, until they see it written out.

EDIT: missing word

Comment author: Alicorn 30 June 2009 12:45:41AM *  7 points [-]

My first instinct was to agree with you. My second instinct was to think, "Does that mean I should not name my child after a straight character in fantasy, either?"

And if I should not, that rules out... just about every name that comes from the Bible, doesn't it? ;)

Comment author: Emile 30 June 2009 08:31:45AM 0 points [-]

It probably wouldn't rule out David.

Comment author: Alicorn 30 June 2009 03:53:58PM *  1 point [-]

The only Biblical name I had in mind was Ruth. Which, really, would be after a great aunt of mine, but the name comes from a Biblical character perhaps best known for following her mother-in-law around after being widowed. I think "maybe you'll be gay" is probably a less damaging message than "maybe you'll be straight, you'll get married, your husband will die, and then you'll live with your mother-in-law in a foreign country".

I do plan to name a first daughter after a fictional character (not a biblical one; Ruth is the prospective middle name of a second daughter) and I picked one with a mellifluous name, who displays various positive character traits throughout the four-book series in which she appears. However, the fact remains that I'm planning to name a kid after a fantasy princess who gets married in her teens to a king she's known for a very short time and lives happily ever after save some troubles with evil wizards and who then goes on to raise her son alone for sixteen years on account of some trouble with the evil wizards. Is this inauspicious? Does it matter?

Comment author: Cyan 30 June 2009 01:12:15AM 4 points [-]

There's a kid who will never worry about coming out to his parents, should it be necessary.

Comment author: Z_M_Davis 30 June 2009 05:36:04AM 1 point [-]

Seconding Alicorn. I haven't read the books, but one would imagine that there's more to this character than simply his being gay.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 June 2009 06:14:28AM 4 points [-]

Sure. But it's a central plot point of his stories, nonetheless.

I think that if I would object to someone naming their daughter Utility, then it's fair enough to worry about someone naming their son Vanyel. Or Singularity Smith or Humanist Hugh. Names shouldn't mark children for their parents' politics. Change your own name if you want to make a statement like that.

And if they just really liked Vanyel the character... I'm sorry, but you've got to be realistic about what shows up on Google.

Comment author: Z_M_Davis 30 June 2009 04:16:18PM 4 points [-]

then it's fair enough to worry about someone naming their son Vanyel. Or Singularity Smith or Humanist Hugh.

Invalid analogy. The name under discussion is Vanyel, not Downwithheteronormativity or Queer Quentin.

Comment author: thomblake 30 June 2009 04:27:07PM 2 points [-]

I'm sorry, but you've got to be realistic about what shows up on Google.

So one should not name one's child Elton, then, as a gay character shows up prominently in the search results?

Names shouldn't mark children for their parents' politics.

Is being okay with homosexuality a matter of politics?

Comment author: Alicorn 30 June 2009 04:29:33PM *  2 points [-]

Is being okay with homosexuality a matter of politics?

Sadly, it is now. Maybe in a hundred years, Eliezer will approve of Vanyel's name for children born at that time? Maybe if he'd lived a hundred years ago he'd have criticized people for naming children after characters of other races, or after characters who associated as equals with other races?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 June 2009 07:09:58PM 6 points [-]

I'll say it again: It's not the job of parents to make that choice for children. If you want to grow up and then change your name, great! (We could use with a tradition of that anyway, so that people have a chance to outrun all the Internet posts they made before they were 21 years old.) But the job of parents choosing a name for their child is first and foremost to be concerned strictly about their children, as they will be as children and then as adults. Candy is a great name for a 4-year-old daughter, not so great for a future Board member of a Fortune 500 company. I'm glad my own parents didn't actually name me Luke Skywalker Yudkowsky, for example, or Hen3ry or any of the other cute names they considered. Or even Hari Seldon Yudkowsky - it probably wouldn't be a help to me in my life.

Children and their names shouldn't be pawns in that sort of game - even with the best possible motives and fighting the best possible battles.

Comment author: CronoDAS 01 July 2009 08:25:16PM 3 points [-]

"Luke S. Yudkowsky" doesn't seem particularly bizarre. Isn't it kind of traditional for people to be embarrassed about their middle name anyway? The others do have problems, though.

Comment author: Alicorn 30 June 2009 07:32:01PM 6 points [-]

It's not the job of parents to make that choice for children.

What choice? You don't seem to be advocating calling children "eldest son" or "second daughter" until they reach the age of majority and accept a name that reflects their adult personalities, so I don't think you mean that parents should not name their children. And every name carries with it a history and a connotation and a sound - even made-up collections of pretty syllables carry the "my parents made up my name, isn't that wacky" connotation. Which ones pass your threshold of not having the wrong connotation or history or sound? It can't be avoided entirely; should we, in your opinion, restrict ourselves to names that are X years old or have X existing popularity or that X% of randomly quizzed people think is a pretty normal name?

Comment author: thomblake 30 June 2009 07:57:15PM 2 points [-]

Indeed - I'm puzzled about what choice Eliezer meant. Eliezer seems to be advocating not naming your child anything that might be in any way weird, which causes me extreme cognitive dissonance when I consider that he thinks 'Eliezer' is okay.

Comment author: HughRistik 01 July 2009 01:06:30AM *  6 points [-]

Eliezer seems to be advocating not naming your child anything that might be in any way weird

I'm not sure avoiding mere weirdness is the point, the point is to avoid any name with associations or permutations that would make one's child easier to tease during childhood, or be taken less seriously during adulthood (e.g. "Candy"), or experience a higher risk of any other negative outcome.

As someone who has experienced childhood bullying, I'm glad that my name didn't give the bullies any additional ammo. If the bully is trying hard enough, they can make fun of just about any name, but some names are easier to make fun of than others.

The child having a positive outcome in the world (meaning the real world of the present, not the world that should be) is more important than parents' exercising their creativity, self-expression, or statement-making, political or otherwise. A child is not a vanity plate.

Comment author: CronoDAS 30 June 2009 09:16:17AM 0 points [-]

If I ever have a daughter, I want to name her Flonne.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 30 June 2009 07:05:39PM 1 point [-]

Has it occurred to you that a daughter only spends a certain number of years being cute, and then wants to grow up and possibly be President?

Comment author: Cyan 30 June 2009 07:32:57PM *  3 points [-]

I'm pretty sure the grandparent is not serious, given CronoDAS's stated plan of living in his parents' house until they die and then comitting suicide.

Comment author: CronoDAS 01 July 2009 08:24:09PM *  2 points [-]

Well, I'm half-joking, half-serious. I don't expect to have a daughter any time soon, so it's mostly just a little bit of fantasizing. I can't picture the name as being a barrier to anything, but I'll take your word for it. I really do adore the character, though. It's not because Flonne looks cute, it's because Flonne is kind, caring, and cheerful, the kind of person you'd want with you when things aren't going so well.

I wouldn't try to name a son Laharl, though.

I'm pretty sure the grandparent is not serious, given CronoDAS's stated plan of living in his parents' house until they die and then comitting suicide.

I don't put a very high probability on my actually carrying out that plan; I give at least a 9 out of 10 chance that something is going to send my life in a different direction before my parents both kick the bucket. I do, however, plan on staying in this house for as long as I can. I like this house!

Comment author: humanerror 04 July 2009 02:20:13AM 0 points [-]

I was once in the same social circle as a guy named Legolas, although I never actually met him myself.

Apparently that was his actual name. His parents were evidently big Lord of the Rings fans.

Comment author: Alicorn 04 July 2009 03:25:45AM 0 points [-]

I knew a girl named Kira after the officer of the same name on Deep Space Nine.

Comment author: CronoDAS 04 July 2009 04:18:43AM *  0 points [-]

I ran into a girl named Kira at an anime convention a few weeks ago. In that context, the name brings something very different to mind.

Comment author: Alan 30 June 2009 03:42:23AM 1 point [-]

With a name like "Utility," while sonorous enough, might this be an invitation to some notion of a need for maximizsation? Is it advisable to freight a child with such expectations? If so, then an alternate that might serve is Bentham(e). At least it could be shortened to Ben. On a lighthearted note, might Utility find himself or herself drawn toward becoming a public utilities worker? (In Latin culture, I'm acquainted with a few people named Jesus and Angel. Suffice to say, none in that sample set appears particularly pious or angelic in disposition or outward behavior. Your mileage may vary.

Tangential to the observation about the Stanford experiement, a story appeared a few years ago about a New York family in which one boy was legally named "Loser;" the other, "Winner." Care to guess which of the two brothers went on to become a police officer? http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/31/1027926917671.html

Comment author: JamesAndrix 30 June 2009 03:23:47PM *  0 points [-]

Is it advisable to freight a child with such expectations?

That's actually a major concern I have in naming generally, I've known people named after abstract concepts that internalized them quite a bit. I would actually advise against any such name. It messes with your head.

Comment author: Alicorn 30 June 2009 04:01:05PM 1 point [-]

Darn, does that rule out "Joyce" too because that refers to the abstract concept of joy? Or is that okay if I want my child to be joyous? What can I name my kids without having them messed up?

Comment author: JamesAndrix 30 June 2009 05:49:49PM 1 point [-]

I think saying "I am Joyce" all the time wouldn't have nearly the impact that saying "I am Joy" would.

Comment author: thomblake 30 June 2009 04:14:34PM -1 points [-]

The trick is, don't think of it as being 'messed up'. There are a lot of different ways of being that are just fine.

One of my children will be named after Alexander the Great and Lex Luthor. I will be teaching her Aristotelian ethics, and I have a strong suspicion she will be told she's a god by her mother.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 30 June 2009 06:09:55PM 0 points [-]

Well, it may depend on where the person would otherwise be psychologically. I think there are ways of being that are messed up, and the wrong name can at least make that worse. It may be that only a small percentage of "Joy"s would be psychologically harmed.

If a name is the worst mistake a parent makes, then the kid will probably be fine anyway.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 30 June 2009 03:39:32PM 0 points [-]

"Vladimir" sounds not unlike "One who controls the World" in Russian (Vladet' = to own, mir = World).

Comment author: thomblake 30 June 2009 03:54:18PM 0 points [-]

My mentor and his wife are fans of Emerson, and their children are named Victor and Will. Victor is named after Frankenstein, as well as the word 'victor'; Will is named for the word 'will'. No telling how they've turned out yet.