Here’s a nominative determinism flavored hypothesis: I believe that people with uncommon names are likelier to develop uncommon identities.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not all uncommon people have uncommon names, but I believe that people with uncommon names are likelier than not to develop in uncommon ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To be clear that by “uncommon” I don’t mean “good”. It could just as easily be “uncommonly bad”. In fact, that’s actually probably the likelier outcome, because, super broadly, it’s harder to be good than bad<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I get that “everyone is unique” (we have different fingerprints, for example) \u2013 but I’m not convinced that people are uniformly unique. Take entrepreneurs: I talk to a lot of them, and I’ve found that they are uncommon and distinct<\/a> from ‘everyday folks’.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I get that “everyday folks” is itself a sort of modern construction, a function of the fact that everybody gets put through this homogenized system of schooling, of thinking, of mainstream media and culture. But even in a classroom some students are uncommon, unruly, deviant<\/p>\n\n\n\n Uncommon people climb mountains, commit mass shootings, write novels, become doctors without borders, start cults. I think people get confused discussing this because of negative associations with words like “commonplace” and positive associations with words like “extraordinary”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several folks have made the observation that “common” and “uncommon” are relative and context-dependent. This is absolutely correct. A John Smith would be extremely uncommon in a classroom in Singapore. According to my hypothesis, this would make a Singaporean John Smith develop in uncommon ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n