New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesQ about Social Security data
I've been doing some research with the U.S. Social Security name lists and have noticed that the farther back you go, the more "nicknames" are fairly high up the list. I don't mean names like Betty and Terry, which are often used independently, but what I would usually consider nicknames only, such as Dave, Pat, Tim, Chris, and so forth.
Then I realized that although most babies today are assigned SS numbers at birth, of course that was not the case in the past. In earlier years, most people must have filled out their own applications as adults. I was old enough to remember when my older siblings and I got our cards; it was at least 1975 or 1976. So apparently as late as that, it still wasn't usual for applications to be made at birth.
It occurred to me that many people who habitually went by a nickname may have filled out their application with that nickname, rather than using their formal given name. That would explain, for example, why over 2,000 men born in 1950 are listed as just "Dan" and over 1,900 are "Jim." I would not have thought that so many parents would use those nicknames on a birth certificate in 1950.
It seems that it would be possible to confirm by researching actual birth records whether these short forms were actually that common as given names. If they were not, this is a limitation of the SSA data that I've never seen mentioned anywhere. I would be curious to hear if this point has ever been addressed.
Then I realized that although most babies today are assigned SS numbers at birth, of course that was not the case in the past. In earlier years, most people must have filled out their own applications as adults. I was old enough to remember when my older siblings and I got our cards; it was at least 1975 or 1976. So apparently as late as that, it still wasn't usual for applications to be made at birth.
It occurred to me that many people who habitually went by a nickname may have filled out their application with that nickname, rather than using their formal given name. That would explain, for example, why over 2,000 men born in 1950 are listed as just "Dan" and over 1,900 are "Jim." I would not have thought that so many parents would use those nicknames on a birth certificate in 1950.
It seems that it would be possible to confirm by researching actual birth records whether these short forms were actually that common as given names. If they were not, this is a limitation of the SSA data that I've never seen mentioned anywhere. I would be curious to hear if this point has ever been addressed.
1
Replies
The collection methods back then were just plan not very good. One thing that intrigues me most is the naming patterns --- if you look at the naming trends for the early years (1800s and early 1900s), many names will appear in the rankings, suddenly jump or fall a few HUNDRED positions in just one year, then return to its original position, then fall into obscurity right off the charts. Yes, I recognize that naming patterns change, but names do not change that drastically, and for many names to go from #600 to #200 to nowhere on the rankings in just a couple years, well, that is not accurate.
1
That is a great observation. We recently received census surveys in the mail, and I know those have been around for a while. I'm thinking the early records went by census surveys that were returned instead of social security numbers. This would certainly account for nicknames, mistaken genders, misspellings (i.e. Joesph instead of Joseph), and probably skewed results, as not everyone would have mailed them back or even been able to fill them out in the first place.
1
I have noticed this also. The name this is the most striking with to me is "Joe". There are a great many more boys listed as just "Joe" in the early years of SSA than I think could possibly have actually had that form on their birth certificates.
The further back you go in the Social Security data, the more seeming gender mistakes there are (too many boys listed with names like Mary).
And I think there are also more mistakes in year of birth. "Lindbergh" first shows up as having more than five boys born with that name a couple of years BEFORE Charles Lindbergh became famous. This is hardly likely and probably comes from elderly and fairly uneducated people simply not remembering their own age correctly when they filled out SSA forms.
The further back you go in the Social Security data, the more seeming gender mistakes there are (too many boys listed with names like Mary).
And I think there are also more mistakes in year of birth. "Lindbergh" first shows up as having more than five boys born with that name a couple of years BEFORE Charles Lindbergh became famous. This is hardly likely and probably comes from elderly and fairly uneducated people simply not remembering their own age correctly when they filled out SSA forms.
1
The first year I find any children listed as "Baby" is 1968, so I would assume that most applications prior to 1968 were not made at birth. However, "Unknown" appears every year and reached a peak in the 1950s when five or six hundred girls and a roughly equal number of boys every year are listed as Unknown. Any ideas on why so many people would have a first name missing, when it's not that their parents hadn't yet decided on a name? Perhaps they put only a first initial, which wasn't accepted by the SSA, so "Unknown" was substituted?
This message was edited 1/10/2011, 3:04 PM
1
Social Security numbers were not routinely assigned at birth until the mid/late 1980s.
1
It's an certainly interesting theory.
Another aspect is that back in the day people were more religious and many babies would get their names after their baptism - for instance, it's hard to imagine a Catholic priest baptising a boy Jim rather than James, after the saint.
Another aspect is that back in the day people were more religious and many babies would get their names after their baptism - for instance, it's hard to imagine a Catholic priest baptising a boy Jim rather than James, after the saint.
1