In last night’s Corrie, Sean Tully said he was thinking of changing his name (12'30" in):
It’s not just the school register that’s alphabetical. It’s life, luck, good fortune and Tully is right at the back of the queue…
If someone were to research it properly, I’m onto something.
If someone were to research it properly, I’m onto something.
Well, Sean, you might be. People at the back of the alphabet are indeed under-represented among life’s achievers.
Take, for example, actors. Only three men with names beginning after U have won best actor Oscar: John Wayne, Denzel Washington and Forrest Whitaker. 27 Oscars have gone to men with names beginning A-E.
Or take footballers of the year. Only three of these have gone to men beginning with U or later. 20 have gone to A-Es.
Similarly, five times as many men with names in the A-E range have become Prime Minister since 1721 than those with names in the U-Z range.
And in Christopher Martin-Jenkins’ list of the 100 greatest cricketers, U-Z also score poorly.
Of course, it might be that U-Z names are rarer. To check this, I used two sources; the distribution of the 100 most common British surnames, and the Leicester phone book. Both agree that U-Z names are rarer than A-E ones. Nevertheless, achievers - measured by PMs, actors, cricketers or footballers - are rarer among U-Zs than the frequency of their name would suggest.
If you want another test, check your record collection. If it’s like mine, it’s biased towards A-Es (though the many Williamses restore the balance.) Bob Dylan wasn’t stupid when he changed his name from Zimmerman.
In the case of actors, there might be a reason for this bias. If casting directors thumb through directories alphabetically, jobs will go to those with early names. So the young Brando, Coopers and De Niros will get more opportunities early in their careers than the Youngs or Woods.
But what explains the lack of later names among Prime Minsters or best footballers?
Take, for example, actors. Only three men with names beginning after U have won best actor Oscar: John Wayne, Denzel Washington and Forrest Whitaker. 27 Oscars have gone to men with names beginning A-E.
Or take footballers of the year. Only three of these have gone to men beginning with U or later. 20 have gone to A-Es.
Similarly, five times as many men with names in the A-E range have become Prime Minister since 1721 than those with names in the U-Z range.
And in Christopher Martin-Jenkins’ list of the 100 greatest cricketers, U-Z also score poorly.
Of course, it might be that U-Z names are rarer. To check this, I used two sources; the distribution of the 100 most common British surnames, and the Leicester phone book. Both agree that U-Z names are rarer than A-E ones. Nevertheless, achievers - measured by PMs, actors, cricketers or footballers - are rarer among U-Zs than the frequency of their name would suggest.
If you want another test, check your record collection. If it’s like mine, it’s biased towards A-Es (though the many Williamses restore the balance.) Bob Dylan wasn’t stupid when he changed his name from Zimmerman.
In the case of actors, there might be a reason for this bias. If casting directors thumb through directories alphabetically, jobs will go to those with early names. So the young Brando, Coopers and De Niros will get more opportunities early in their careers than the Youngs or Woods.
But what explains the lack of later names among Prime Minsters or best footballers?
It's also possible that the relative rarity of U-Z surnames is itself a result of nominative determinism, if it turned out that men (in this case it would largely apply to men) with surnames at the end of the alphabet found it more difficult to find a partner and reproduce.
If having a name near the beginning of the alphabet correlates with higher achievement in other fields, and high achievement in other fields correlates with higher reproductive success, then this isn't wholly implausible. Although that isn't the same as saying there's plenty of evidence for it, and it doesn't explain anything.
Posted by: Tom | June 02, 2009 at 11:26 AM
There is a slight advantage in UK elections to having a name near the start of thr alphabet, as you then appear nearer the top of the ballot paper. This is particularly helpful in elections for multiple positions, such as multi-member council wards, but there is still a small advantage even in parliamentary elections. I'm sceptical that this can explain all the over-representation of A-Es in politics, but it does have some effect.
Posted by: Iain Coleman | June 02, 2009 at 11:58 AM
With a null hypothesis that they are distributed according to the frequencies in your most popular names table, I made Chi squared test for the 62 footballers for the ranges you supply 7.01 - which with 4 degs freedom means a 13% chance of the footballers names being this distributed - so not really that unlikely.
The 53 different Prime Ministers names are barely enough data to do a proper test, but I got 5.78, which is 21% chance, so also not that unlikely a distribution.
Admit my figures were not exactly the same as yours - had to make some guesses - are "Roseberry" and "Salisbury" surnames ? Is Bonar Law a "b" or an "l" etc. !
Posted by: Jon B | June 02, 2009 at 01:51 PM
On MPs in the 2001 parliament (sorry my sheet was missing 2005 for some reason) I get 29%, 20%, 22%, 22%, 7%.
The cricketers are close to the average, but only about 1/8 come from England, so perhaps that changes things.
On PMs it could just be coincidence, or maybe names were more a-e biased in the old days - but then again blair, brown, callaghan, etc. Did you do Douglas Home or Home?
US presidents seem more biased in the F to Js,
Posted by: Matthew | June 02, 2009 at 01:58 PM
The devil take your stereo, Dillow, and your record collection. But if you run through a list of British classical composers, the predominance of names beginning with "B" is worthy of remark.
Posted by: James Hamilton | June 02, 2009 at 02:14 PM
Vaughn Williams counts two, I suppose?
Posted by: dearieme | June 02, 2009 at 02:50 PM
World's top 100 golfers splits (% and no.) 18, 25, 22, 21, and 12. Of course that's from all around the world, but no A-E bias there.
Posted by: Matthew | June 02, 2009 at 03:35 PM
A check of the 183 Nobel prizes in physics shows the following split, in percentages: 27.3,17.5,19.7,26.8,8.7.
So again, the U-Zs seem under-represented, unless (which I doubt) U-Zs are rarer among global surnames than UK ones.
(Source = http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/)
@ Jon B: I use the family name of Lords, so Rosebery is a Primrose, Salisbury a Gascoyne-Cecil etc (Douglas Home is a D).
Thanks for your estimate of statistical significance, but a Bayesian would demur. Sean's prior is not the null hypothesis, but the view that names matter. So the low chances you estimate probably strengthen his view.
Posted by: chris | June 02, 2009 at 05:57 PM
Just a quick one:
for some unknown reason (which I endorse, whatever it may be!) your website appears much less often now on "politicshome"). This means I am now much less likely to stumble onto your pinko-Igottadgereeinppe-nonsense.
And this post should be a case in point for everyone: says nothing; means nothing; proves nothing....er, except that Dillow's a damn fine, clever chap with an Oxford degree in ppe................
on the other hand, as an exercise in no-nothing ineptitude resulting in a great job at the Investors' Chronicle, I use your site as an example to my students that ANYONE can succeed...
Posted by: kardinal birkutzki | June 02, 2009 at 08:12 PM
As anyone will tell you, it's got nothing to do with your surname. What counts is your first name, and whether someone can rememeber it....
Posted by: kinglear | June 02, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Is "Sean Tully" a misspelling of Chantelle?
Posted by: dearieme | June 02, 2009 at 11:32 PM
No, but I think "kardinal birkutzki" might be, dearieme.
Posted by: James | June 03, 2009 at 08:54 AM
Lucky me, eh?
Posted by: Tom Addison | June 03, 2009 at 02:41 PM
My new name is Aaron Aardvaak.
Posted by: jameshigham | June 04, 2009 at 01:30 PM
nominative determinism?
............................
http://www.muncom.com
Posted by: free online store | June 13, 2009 at 02:10 PM
lol yeah, I think it is about time I added ! to the start of my name
Posted by: lipotrim | October 04, 2009 at 10:19 PM
This is just one idea, and perhaps displays no more than my limited imagination. If there are better ideas out there, that amount to more than "implement something called "market socialism" and then - alacazam! - full employment!" then I'd love to hear them. http://www.watchgy.com/ mostly bank deposits, fell by £143.2bn in Q1. And of course there’s no guarantee such buying will continue.
http://www.watchgy.com/tag-heuer-c-24.html
http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-submariner-c-8.html
Posted by: omega | December 27, 2009 at 05:15 PM