New Post
Search
Help[Facts] Q 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