I'm not sure this article has any real meaning besides being a strained excuse to string a bunch of interesting tidbits together. Names mean different things to different people. Your name is your label. It's through your words and deeds you determine what meaning that label has.
So when someone asks, "Who are you," don’t tell them "Bud Baker," or "Larry Watterworth," or even your legal name. Tell them who you really are, and if they stick around, then tell them your human label.
I don't know if this is symbolic advice or just naive advice. That's obviously not a practical course of action.
The terminology used and author conclusions are questionable but the idea the article presents (using a pseudonym or 'pseudopseudonym' that is like a more concise version of your name) is a solid approach to marketing yourself and making a more significant impression on others is true. People have been aware of this since Positioning was first published in the 80s.
Whether or not you want to is up to you, but for someone like me I'd prefer not to use my whole unique and cumbersome name.
For many years, I was known as Firstname Firstlastname, but several years ago I got married and now I’m Firstname Secondlastname. Which is my true label? I tend to go by First, a shortened version of Firstname. Is that my label?
Oh yea, also, my wife goes a first name totally different than her legal first name, so her family calls her one thing, and her friends call her something else. She’s still the same person either way.
See I don't think that's true, at least not always. You're not a different person at work than at home? You've never been uncomfortable because you have two sets of people in the same place who are accustomed to you filling a different role?
I’m a new parent, so I just got to (had to?) name someone for the first time. In my jurisdiction you actually have quite a while before you have to make that choice, but you do eventually need to make it. It speaks to lots of point in this essay:
My son certainly doesn’t know his name yet, but it’s how everyone addresses him. So it is definitely not an integral part of his identity, at least as he experiences it.
The name doesn’t have any meaning for me nor my wife. It is normal enough to be familiar, stands out enough to not disappear, is nice to abbreviate, sounds pleasing to our ears. But it also has nothing to do with him or his ancestry at all, except it’s ethnically congruous I guess.
So my son is not at all his name, probably for the only time in his life. It is a bit odd.
I went through this as well and kept throwing out "Sharper Image" as a name, one for the homage to the Simpsons' "Max Power", and two because it'd be hard not to confront that name as "not my identity". It's hardly even the identity of the products distributed by the now defunct company.
Thankfully I would never get my way on this. My first born's name fits the criteria you listed almost exactly. The idea of naming them after an older family member is growing on me for similar reasons - it's fun to say "oh you're just like Grandpa <name> in this way, but not in this other way" I guess.
"Max Power" is an interesting one to me because it mostly-plausibly feels like a real name. After all, there are plenty of people with the given name Max, and plenty of people with the family name Power.
I wanted to ensure I had a good relationship with my son with no poor preconceived mental notions. So any name corresponding with a dickhead I knew was immediately thrown out.
The name is not unheard of, so no doubt there will be dickheads out there with this name. But not that I personally know of, so in my mind the name/identity is his to shape.
So many people avoid the names of people they've disliked or hated. They advise their siblings, children, or friends, "Don't name your child that. I knew someone with that name and I didn't like them."
And yet it seems that so few realize what a poor reason that is to avoid a name. Your perception of a name is not permanent. In fact, your perception of a name is quickly overwritten when you are closely associated with someone of that name.
You'll forget all about that person you don't like if someone close to you shares their name. The person close to you owns it now, at least in your mind.
This is not a judgment of the parent commenter. Everyone has a right to name their children as they choose. I just wish more people noticed how fluid their perception of a name is.
I agree with you however there is the point of the person in question having already established themselves.
The new friend with the once-tainted name already has a personality/life-experience they can use to enforce your new view of that name.
A new baby has no self identity as yet and will be largely shaped by the parental interactions. As a parent, I didn't want my poor perception of a name to negatively affect in any minute conscious or unconscious way how I interact with my newborn child.
Extreme? Yeah. But parents tend to get a bit extreme on some aspect or other when it comes to their kids and I figured that - as you say - it's just a name. If my extreme is to simply rule out names I don't like, then that's not so bad.
The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you've gotten the fish, you can forget the trap.
The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare.
Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?
When I was 12 I selected an online name. Many people refer to me by that name and have nearly forgotten my real name (my last name for sure). Over high school, I had many names and developed a full-blown alias. This disturbed my father at the time.
A couple people I know live by these new names that we chose, even at work where they use their alias everywhere but on their taxes/employment record.
Around 2015 I worked with someone who used a "handle" for most things. It was their GitHub username and their "@" in Slack.
I remember thinking it was interesting how I had developed something of a disconnect between "the person" and "the person's communications". It was almost (but not quite) like they were completely different identities to me.
This sort of thing was common in the '80s/90s. I still know several people who are known exclusively by their handles. I changed my own legal name to match my alias.
This is a confusing comment: your birth name is on your birth certificate, but it isn't the same thing as your birth certificate. Even if it were illegal to "use your birth certificate" (for what?), why in the world would it be illegal to use your name?
Also, for the record: my birth certificate doesn't say anything like that on it. My social security card does, however. But that doesn't actually make it illegal to use as an ID.
My understanding is that a birth certificate certifies when and where someone was born and who their biological parents are. You still need to prove that the name on the certificate belongs to you.
I changed my name when I got married but kept my pre-marriage name professionally and I can’t recommend the strategy more highly.
I have multiple numbers and emails so I can be who I want with a given audience.
Having recently relocated I decide whom to let on to my work name. For everyone else it’s as if I have almost no no digital presence, which is frankly a relief.
This article is incredibly low quality and I don't say that lightly.
I agree that names don't mean much. This username is linked to a single GitHub account. The pseudonym I write under is entirely made up. I have no interest in brand recognition or getting hired because people recognize my name. In many ways, I think provenance is a cancer to the proliferation and building of truly good ideas. Instead, I'd rather people focus on the ideas I've presented and debate those - they, with hope, will live on a lot longer than my name will.
Jane Fonda actively participated in the propagation of propaganda for her own entertainment and brand. She's quite well known in most veteran circles for calling people who had visible signs of torture and abuse "hypocrites and liars and pawns" when they told their stories, then tried to walk that back to, "I'm quite sure that there were incidents of torture ... but the pilots who were saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic, I believe that's a lie."
History now shows us it was systemic and all she had to give was a very half-ass mea culpa for her photo in an AA gun that was used to shoot down US planes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda#Regrets
“Who knows a man's name, holds that man's life in his keeping. Thus to Ged, who had lost faith in himself, Vetch had given him that gift that only a friend can give, the proof of unshaken, unshakeable trust.”
Agreed with the comments that point out this 'article'/post is not exceptionally well written.
In general I would ask what is in a name. Yet I have always been my name, deeply and unshakably. With a 'foreign' name in a small town I could be mistaken for no one else and in that way my name was deeply bounded to me. It invoked perceptions, mistaken assumptions and every externalized characteristic. In time it was also mine to define through the time required to build a reputation that could, in some circles, precede me.
Now I work with four people who share my name. A cousin's daughter shares my name. It is one of the weirder day to day experiences of my life.
Lots of studies show names matter when getting a job, few suggest you change it, to something less ethnic for instance.
I also know hard names I will not say so I don't make a mistake, so I won't personally address that person, which will make the relationship more difficult.
It's interesting. Changing your name can increase your power. Hollywood has known this for year. Few people do it.
"Touch" by Claire North makes you really think about this in the digital age. IRL you have a body, so names are more detached, but as we go digital, names are all you have... currently. In the book the protagonist has an ephemeral body, so what is a person in that case?
36 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 88.9 ms ] threadSo when someone asks, "Who are you," don’t tell them "Bud Baker," or "Larry Watterworth," or even your legal name. Tell them who you really are, and if they stick around, then tell them your human label.
I don't know if this is symbolic advice or just naive advice. That's obviously not a practical course of action.
Whether or not you want to is up to you, but for someone like me I'd prefer not to use my whole unique and cumbersome name.
Oh yea, also, my wife goes a first name totally different than her legal first name, so her family calls her one thing, and her friends call her something else. She’s still the same person either way.
Names aren’t all that important, I’m thinking.
See I don't think that's true, at least not always. You're not a different person at work than at home? You've never been uncomfortable because you have two sets of people in the same place who are accustomed to you filling a different role?
My son certainly doesn’t know his name yet, but it’s how everyone addresses him. So it is definitely not an integral part of his identity, at least as he experiences it.
The name doesn’t have any meaning for me nor my wife. It is normal enough to be familiar, stands out enough to not disappear, is nice to abbreviate, sounds pleasing to our ears. But it also has nothing to do with him or his ancestry at all, except it’s ethnically congruous I guess.
So my son is not at all his name, probably for the only time in his life. It is a bit odd.
Thankfully I would never get my way on this. My first born's name fits the criteria you listed almost exactly. The idea of naming them after an older family member is growing on me for similar reasons - it's fun to say "oh you're just like Grandpa <name> in this way, but not in this other way" I guess.
The name is not unheard of, so no doubt there will be dickheads out there with this name. But not that I personally know of, so in my mind the name/identity is his to shape.
And yet it seems that so few realize what a poor reason that is to avoid a name. Your perception of a name is not permanent. In fact, your perception of a name is quickly overwritten when you are closely associated with someone of that name.
You'll forget all about that person you don't like if someone close to you shares their name. The person close to you owns it now, at least in your mind.
This is not a judgment of the parent commenter. Everyone has a right to name their children as they choose. I just wish more people noticed how fluid their perception of a name is.
The new friend with the once-tainted name already has a personality/life-experience they can use to enforce your new view of that name.
A new baby has no self identity as yet and will be largely shaped by the parental interactions. As a parent, I didn't want my poor perception of a name to negatively affect in any minute conscious or unconscious way how I interact with my newborn child.
Extreme? Yeah. But parents tend to get a bit extreme on some aspect or other when it comes to their kids and I figured that - as you say - it's just a name. If my extreme is to simply rule out names I don't like, then that's not so bad.
A couple people I know live by these new names that we chose, even at work where they use their alias everywhere but on their taxes/employment record.
I remember thinking it was interesting how I had developed something of a disconnect between "the person" and "the person's communications". It was almost (but not quite) like they were completely different identities to me.
I basically do this, but it was by accident. I think it's a nice idea to have this kind of separation.
As far as I’m concerned, my name is Kayodé. My legal name is a convenient alias to hide behind in the “real world”.
Having the separation is nice because there are many things I can talk about as Kayodé than my legal name can’t. (Mental health for one.)
“Other people use your name, not you, so the name belongs to other people. Render unto Caesar, etc.
Your name refers to, not your identity (whatever that is), but the idea of you in the heads of other people.”
— https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28008263
If you look at your birth certificate, it will say something like 'not to be used for id'.
So, what is the thing that we all use the birth certificate for?
We are actually committing fraud to use the birth certificate.
Also, for the record: my birth certificate doesn't say anything like that on it. My social security card does, however. But that doesn't actually make it illegal to use as an ID.
I have multiple numbers and emails so I can be who I want with a given audience.
Having recently relocated I decide whom to let on to my work name. For everyone else it’s as if I have almost no no digital presence, which is frankly a relief.
I agree that names don't mean much. This username is linked to a single GitHub account. The pseudonym I write under is entirely made up. I have no interest in brand recognition or getting hired because people recognize my name. In many ways, I think provenance is a cancer to the proliferation and building of truly good ideas. Instead, I'd rather people focus on the ideas I've presented and debate those - they, with hope, will live on a lot longer than my name will.
Lastly, since it brought up Jane Fonda and characterized her involvement in the war as a "visit": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda#Visit_to_Hanoi
Jane Fonda actively participated in the propagation of propaganda for her own entertainment and brand. She's quite well known in most veteran circles for calling people who had visible signs of torture and abuse "hypocrites and liars and pawns" when they told their stories, then tried to walk that back to, "I'm quite sure that there were incidents of torture ... but the pilots who were saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic, I believe that's a lie."
History now shows us it was systemic and all she had to give was a very half-ass mea culpa for her photo in an AA gun that was used to shoot down US planes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda#Regrets
Agreed with the comments that point out this 'article'/post is not exceptionally well written.
In general I would ask what is in a name. Yet I have always been my name, deeply and unshakably. With a 'foreign' name in a small town I could be mistaken for no one else and in that way my name was deeply bounded to me. It invoked perceptions, mistaken assumptions and every externalized characteristic. In time it was also mine to define through the time required to build a reputation that could, in some circles, precede me.
Now I work with four people who share my name. A cousin's daughter shares my name. It is one of the weirder day to day experiences of my life.
I also know hard names I will not say so I don't make a mistake, so I won't personally address that person, which will make the relationship more difficult.
It's interesting. Changing your name can increase your power. Hollywood has known this for year. Few people do it.
"Touch" by Claire North makes you really think about this in the digital age. IRL you have a body, so names are more detached, but as we go digital, names are all you have... currently. In the book the protagonist has an ephemeral body, so what is a person in that case?