Your Name Determines Your Success

Your Name Determines Your Success

What's in a name? Apparently your personality, success and future.

There's no doubt that names have a great impact on who you become, but to what extent? We're usually named by our parents, so our names reflects their expectations which "indirectly reflects the personality and behavior expectations of the child," said James Bruning, a psychology professor at Ohio University. These expectations are carried outside the home by others in society, from school teachers to job interviewers. Depending on what traits the name is associated with, children as young as those in kindergarten identify with a "passive" or "active" personality.

For example, Bruning said, "Which of these two little boys do you think had parents with a more “active” set of expectations: Colt or Percival? Which of the two would more likely take music lessons?"

What about Anna and Zoey – who do you think would prefer coloring over playing outside?

According to the study, by third grade, the children's names almost exactly matched with the "expected behavior" associated with their name. This is not to say that every Percival is "passive" or that every Zoey prefers playing outside, but it is interesting how people – particularly children – may consciously or subconsciously exhibit certain traits that collectively contribute to society's connotative definition of the name. So, a boy named Champ, who may feel the societal expectation to be a winner (just like his name sounds) may subconsciously be drawn to playing definite lose-win sports, like former football cornerback Champ Bailey.

There's even a disproportionate chart of names that are commonly associated with their particular profession, noting that there are just as many guitarists named Richie and accountants named Maribel as we would stereotypically expect there to be in that particular line of work. In some cases, people are drawn to job titles that correlate with their name, such as Usain Bolt, the fastest runner ever or even Donald Trump as a television producer. This phenomenon is called "nominative determinism". Psychologist Dr. Brett Pelham dubs the entire case of name-letter attraction as "implicit egotism", which is the natural human preference to gravitate towards people, things and places that resemble oneself.

“If you notice even some fragment of your name, it catches your attention and creates a positive association for you,” said Pelham to Science Focus.

And speaking of positive association, common, easier-to-pronounce names are more likely to be favored – especially if the last name is closer to the beginning of the alphabet. The Economics of Education Review published a study that analyzed the relationship between the last names of 90,000 Czech students and their admission chances into competitive colleges. The researchers found that in many cases, students with last names closer to the beginning of the alphabet were more likely to be admitted to the college even if they had lower test scores than their counterparts with last names starting with letters near the end of the alphabet.

What's worse is that an uncommon name particularly one that's not "white-sounding" – may be likely to land a kid in juvenile detention, as suggested by a 2009 Shippensburg University study. Researchers noted that regardless of race, kids with unusual, unpopular names "may be more prone to crime because they are treated differently by their peers, making it more difficult for them to form relationships," reports Business Insider. Boys with "girl's names" have a greater risk of being suspended from school, according to a 2005 study. On the other hand, another study found that women with masculine or gender-neutral names like Cameron, Jan or Lesile may find success in male-dominated fields like engineering and law.

An American Economic Association study confirms that there's a preference for white-sounding names when it comes to job interviews.

"White-sounding names like Emily Walsh and Greg Baker got nearly 50 percent more callbacks than candidates with black-sounding names like Lakisha Washington and Jamal Jones," reports Business Insider. Researchers found that a white-sounding name constituted as much as eight years of work experience, even if the candidate lacked solid work history. This subtle discrimination is a huge drawback for "ethnic-sounding" names which could be different for every country. Even in the melting pot nation of U.S., a name is considered ethnic-sounding if it has any cultural ties, whether it's from the Latin America, the African continent, the Middle East or the Asias, boomeranging across Europe and back to the Americas.

Famous Indian-American individuals, including "actress and comedian Mindy Kaling (born Vera Chokalingam)... politician Bobby Jindal (Piyush Jindal at birth) and Canadian-Indian Bollywood actress Sunny Leone (formerly Karenjit Kaur Vohra) all changed their birth names in part to better their career prospects," reports BBC. Had they kept their birth names and applied for a job in the mathematics or science sector, they might have been hired on the spot due to the stereotypical assumption that "Asians are good at math," notes Science Focus.

Despite all the advancements American society has made diversity wise, people are still judging others, playing with their future and affecting their shot at success just because of their name.

So, what future does your name hold?

Cover Image Credit: Zeenews

Popular Right Now

The Dangers Of Ideology And The Importance Of Free Speech & Debate

Universities are currently policing thought, indoctrinating students into a radical egalitarian ideology, and crushing dissenting opinion.

It’s truly amazing to consider how quickly the culture on college campuses has changed over the last several years. Once staunch defenders of speech and academic freedom, modern universities are quickly turning into ideological echo chambers, indoctrinating students into a radical left-wing egalitarian worldview, while crushing dissenting opinion.

The disturbingly Orwellian trend to quell free expression on campuses can best be illustrated by an event that unfolded last year at James Madison University’s freshman orientation, when “student leaders” distributed a list of 35 things that incoming students should avoid saying, including phrases such as “you have a pretty face,” “love the sinner, hate the sin,” “we’re all part of the human race,” “I treat all people the same,” “people just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps,” among other expressions.

You might find yourself laughing this off as nonsense, an isolated set of events perpetuated by a select group of fringe radicals. Unfortunately, I can assure you that this is not an isolated incident. In addition to the slew of protests that erupted at universities last year in response to conservative speakers being invited to campus, these kinds of events are indicative of a larger, and more pernicious attempt by the radical left to control the linguistic territory.

At universities across America, the campus left now demands that people accept certain preconditions for discussion. Not the kind of reasonable preconditions such as “treat people with respect,” or “don’t resort to personal attacks.” Rather, It is demanded that you accept a neo-Marxian worldview, rooted in the notion that the world is nothing more than a power struggle between two groups of people: those who oppress and those who are oppressed. They demand that people accept notions like white-male privilege as axiomatic – not to be debated – and force people to acknowledge how they've been privileged by the current socio-economic structure.

Refusing to accept these presuppositions not only bars someone from participating in the discussion. To challenge an idea, such as white privilege, is to reject the fact that racism and bigotry exist in our society. To challenge the notion that being white necessarily means you must be more privileged than a person of color is akin to blasphemy. To push against the idea that certain classes of people in America are ‘victims of systemic oppression’ is to deny the humanity and individual experiences of people of color, women, and other minority groups.

The campus left emphatically espouse the notion that “the personal is political.” Thus they believe, unequivocally, that the primary responsibility of the University should be to ensure students from “diverse cultural backgrounds” feel safe – and by safe they mean “not having their identities challenged;” and by identities they are referring to their belief systems – the lens by which they perceive the word.

From the perspective of a radical leftist, to participate in debate is not seen as merely engaging in criticism of some abstract idea. To challenge an idea is to challenge someone’s identity, and to challenge someone’s identity is to debate their humanity.

And that is one of the axiomatic rules of the campus Left – you cannot debate someone’s humanity.

Indeed, with more than a fifth of college undergrads now believing its okay to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive or hurtful statement,” the future of the First Amendment itself is currently uncertain.

What exactly is so dangerous about this movement?

For starters, the freedom of speech has wrongly been construed as just another value that we in the West hold in high regard. But it is more than a Right that we share as citizens of this nation. It is, ultimately, the mechanism by which keep our psyches and societies functioning.

See, most people just aren’t that good at thinking. I don't mean this as a sleight against anyone, but we’re all insufficient and we have limited awareness of most things because we just can’t know everything. We rely on communication with one another to facilitate the process of learning about things outside our realm of knowledge. Often we have to, first, stumble around like the blithering idiots we are, espousing our biased beliefs in a public forum, and subjecting our ideas to criticism before we can properly orient our thoughts.

When the open exchange of ideas is allowed, you get the opportunity for multiple people to put forward their biased oversimplifications and engage in debate that raises the resolution of the particular question and answer at hand. Ideas are hit with hammers, combed for contradictions, inadequacies and even falsehoods. On an individual level, this kind of scrutiny sharpens the schema you use to navigate the world because other people can tell you things you can’t know by yourself.

Maybe it’s an opinion espoused, or a behavior that manifests itself, or a misconception you hold- in any event, subjecting your beliefs to criticism is, in the short term sometimes painful because we often learn things about the world and ourselves that are uncomfortable; but, in the long term, it is the only way method we have for moving closer towards something that more closely resembles truth – and if not anything true, at least something less wrong. As a result, the lens by which you look at the world becomes clearer.

Further, it is also through a collective process of dialectic that we identify problems in our societies, formulate solutions, and come to some sort of consensus.

Thus the right to say what you believe should not just considered as "just another value." It's a conical value, without which all the other values we hold dear, that people have fought so hard, in such an unlikely manner, to preserve and produce all disappear.

Without it, there can be no progress. Without it, individuals abdicate their responsibility to engage in the sacred process of discovery and renewal. Without it, we can’t think. Without it, there can be no truth. Without it, there can be nothing but nihilistic psychopathology. The end result is a populist that is not only afraid to say what they think, but that doesn't even know what they think because they haven’t been allowed to stumble around in the dark to find some tiny fragment of light.

Therefore, when we consider placing restrictions on the freedom of speech we must do so with the most extreme caution. By setting ridiculous preconditions for discussion, the campus left not only makes the process by which we solve the problems with our society more difficult, but also, if taken to its extreme, it can lead to totalitarianism.

In the wake of dozens of campus protests last year, universities are now in a position where they have to choose between two incompatible values: truth or social justice. The former will lead us to a greater understanding, while the latter can only divide.

Cover Image Credit: Teen Vogue

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Being An English Speaker Is A Privileged Status

Multi-lingual is the way to go

English is not the official language of the United States of America. But even if it was, a country apparently founded on the idea of valuing every citizen as a free individual could do a much better job welcoming people who do not speak English.

While it is natural that one language became the most common, and that this has simplified many processes, this same simplification is not afforded to those who do not speak the language.

Language barriers can reduce one’s job opportunities, meaning that even if one has degrees and plenty of experience, many jobs are simply not available. Many employers are unfortunately unaccepting of those who do not speak English fluently, and some even discriminate against those who do not natively speak English.

Education becomes extremely complex for non-English-speakers. On the student side, while many schools offer English as a Second Language programs, which is wonderful, it should be acknowledged that these students face more work and less support than students who are native English speakers. To add to this, if parents do not speak English, communication from the school or with teachers becomes harder to access.

One of the greatest privileges of English speakers lies in healthcare. They can be sure that they will find a doctor who speaks their language and can clearly explain their medical situation in that language. The same goes for psychologists, social workers, and others in the health professions.

This becomes especially complicated for those who speak languages that are not commonly studied.

A friend of mine who teaches was mentioning recently that while there are many students and families in her district who speak Arabic, there are so few people working in psychology, social work, or other support services who speak the language that for the district to access them is not only difficult but expensive.

This too often means that schools fail to offer students and parents speaking these less-commonly studied languages sufficient aid.

So what is the answer? To adopt English as an official language would be so wrong in our country full of diverse and wonderful languages, backgrounds, and cultures. Instead of attempting to make English more and more widespread, we should focus our efforts on ensuring that people in this country who do not speak English can receive all of the same support as those who do speak English.

Some of this lies in ensuring that systems and institutions offer resources in several languages and that employers will not discriminate against those who are not native English speakers.

Much of the solution, however, is on us, especially if we are students entering a people-oriented profession. In fact, in all professions, becoming multi-lingual does not merely open doors for us but creates a society where more people have access to the services they need.

Cover Image Credit: Maialisa

Related Content

Facebook Comments