How we name things in a Code 6 world

The names we use are struggling to reflect our changing world. A new behavioural science approach to naming is called for

When Shakespeare famously asked 'what's in a name', the inference was that a name was not as important as the properties of the person or thing being named. But perhaps this, in fact, is reflective of Shakespeare's world, which was arguably more stable and predictable than today. What happens if our world changes, the way we need to understand it fundamentally shifts? How do we manage naming conventions as the codes we have used for centuries get overturned?

An example of this is the Saffir-Simpson Scale wind scale, which names different hurricane categories and tells us what kind of damage to expect from various wind strengths. The highest windspeed, Category 5, with winds of 157 mph or more, is considered 'catastrophic,' with complete roof failure on many buildings and only a few types of structures surviving intact.

The naming convention stopped at Category 5 as meteorologists never thought there would be a need for a Category 6 name. But climate breakdown has meant this is changing: there is 5 to 8% more water vapour in the atmosphere than a generation which, combined with warmer temperatures, has created the potential for superstorms. For example, Hurricane Dorian, which hit the Bahamas in 2019, had winds of 185 mph and dumped rain for 48 hours. Although technically a Category 5, many considered it significantly more severe.

Some scientists argue that we need to add names to reflect the world we are living in; otherwise, our conventions are out of date. But others say that any storm with winds above 157 miles per hour or so, which is named a Category 5, is a catastrophe no matter what and if the point of the names is to support the population's understanding of risk and take appropriate action, then there is little point in potentially confusing things by adding a name. As one scientist pointed out, once a building is totally destroyed, you can't get more destroyed and an open-ended 5 accounts for that.

If we are asked, 'What is in a name?' There may, it seems, be a lot more than we might have expected at first glance. We are taking a behavioural lens to names and naming to explore how we can understand the surprisingly important role that names play in the way we understand and classify the world. The future of names could well offer interesting ways to reflect and navigate our rapidly changing social and cultural environments.

The political nature of names

Any online search will quickly reveal how complex and sometimes controversial the act of naming is. For example, 'Boaty McBoatface' became a viral sensation in 2016 when the British public chose it as the name for a new polar research vessel in an online poll. Although the vessel was ultimately named RRS Sir David Attenborough, the popularity of 'Boaty McBoatface' led to its use as one of its autonomous submarines. At the other end of the spectrum of names and the controversy they can sometimes cause, there has been debate about whether the little-known beetle, Anophthalmus hitleri, named for Adolf Hitler in 1937, should have its name changed. There was a media controversy about Meghan Markle and Prince Harry naming their daughter Lilibet 'Lili' Diana, a name significant for being the Queen's personal family nickname.

Brands are also often concerned about the names they use. Google was originally called 'Backrub': whether success was due to the provenance of the now successful name (from the mathematical term "googol") is open to debate. An example of how brand names have led to poor outcomes is from the early 1990s when Pepsi introduced 'Crystal Pepsi,' a clear version of its cola intended to appeal to health-conscious consumers. However, the name 'Crystal' suggested purity, which perhaps did not resonate with what consumers expected from a cola, and it was soon withdrawn from sale.

Getting names right is essential. But how do we go about this? We must first explore what we think the job is of a name and what we expect from it.

Names as Intrinsically Meaningful

Throughout history, names have tended to be considered to have some form of intrinsic meaning, designed to reflect the true nature or 'calling' of the individual or object they are attached to. This is an 'essentialist' perspective, in that the name tells us something about the qualities of the person or object.

This is inevitably bound up with broader social and cultural behaviours. As many people who have been party to choosing a child's name will be aware, there are many explanations available of the provenance and meanings of names that people may seek in their choice (such as Courtney, meaning snubbed nose). And, of course, there are religious customs concerning names. For example, in the Christian tradition, names like 'Gabriel' (meaning 'God is my strength') suggest the individual's spiritual destiny. The widely use name 'Muhammad' means 'the praised one,' signifying a connection to the Prophet's characteristics such as integrity and devotion to God.

We also see essentialism reflected in brand names, as these often have historically close ties to the product's core function or origin. For example, General Electric was named to reflect its primary business—producing electrical products. The brand name 'Nike' was inspired by the Greek goddess of victory and connected to the brand's purpose of inspiring athletes to achieve victory. The brand name 'Whole Foods' conveys the store's commitment to offering natural, unprocessed foods.

Therefore, we can see that names have long been used to reflect the inner characteristics of a person, object, or brand. However, there is also something more active going on in these choices as we look to names to reflect an inner quality and shape outcomes.

Names as 'Performative Acts'

Philosopher J.L. Austin suggested that language can 'do' things rather than merely describe them. In this way, names function as 'performative acts', not merely describing but actively creating reality.

So, according to Austin, 'performative utterances' are statements that do not merely convey information but actively bring something into being. Naming, whether for a person, object or brand, is one such act. When we name something, we create its identity and give it a place in the world. This means that a name does not just label something but also helps bring that entity into social existence. This aligns with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis from psychology, which sets out the way that the structure of language influences our cognition. In its stronger form, language determines thought (linguistic determinism); in its weaker form, language influences thought (linguistic relativity).

There is a great deal of evidence that names strongly influence how others perceive us and how we perceive ourselves. For example, researchers Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan found that job applicants with 'white-sounding' names got more callbacks compared to those with 'black-sounding' names, even when they had precisely the same C.V.s. The 'name-desirability effect' also suggests that people form positive associations with their own names, which can influence their behaviour. A study led by social psychologist Brett Pelham explored the concept of implicit egotism, which is how people are unconsciously drawn to others by things resembling aspects of themselves, including their names. Yonat Zwebner and colleagues found that names can influence an individual's facial appearance, with people and computers accurately matching names to faces based on name stereotypes. Daniel Figlio also showed that gendered names influence behaviour and career paths.

All of these examples show the way that choice of name can impact both external perceptions and self-identity. And this is not limited to our first name choices for children but is increasingly applied to other areas. For example, first names are seen as an easy way to make products feel more personal. Research has found that giving customer-service chatbots a human name has "a direct, beneficial relationship with transaction outcomes." The fact that a group of people with the name Alexa is pushing back on the choice of name for Amazon's popular device perhaps implicitly reinforces the power of using names in this way.

Again, referencing weather, the U.K.'s Meteorological Office started giving storm names in 2014, reflecting the longstanding practice in the U.S. The aim is that people will be more aware of big storms and their danger, and the name will also make it easier to track via media reports. This has sparked calls for heatwaves to have a similar status, with a weather website in Italy named current heat waves after mythological figures like Caronte and Cerberus, the multiheaded dog that guards the Underworld in Greek mythology.

Names as Flexible Tools

On this basis, in contrast to the notion of names simply being labels that reflect the properties of the person, object, brand, political movement, etc. being named, we can instead consider them as social constructions that not only reflect but also create changes to the way we see ourselves and hope others do so as well.

This is reflected in a very tangible way with actor Elliot Page, who announced his name change from Ellen to Elliot after coming out as transgender. The act of changing his name facilitated a new social identity, which then reshaped how people interacted with him.

We see a similar phenomenon with immigration: people change their names to construct a new social persona. When Italians migrated to the U.S. between the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they often found their names altered to reflect their origins or simplified for more straightforward pronunciation in their new country. Today, it remains common for Asian students and professionals to adjust their names to fit Western expectations, aiming to facilitate smoother interactions and fit into the different cultural and societal frameworks.

This constructivist approach to names also applies to brands with, for example, Dunkin' Donuts' rebranding to 'Dunkin', designed to appeal to consumers who associate the brand with more than just doughnuts, expanding its identity to include coffee and other products. This is not uncommon: in 2018, Weight Watchers changed its name to W.W., standing for 'Wellness that Works,' reflecting a desire to expand its services to include broader wellness and health offerings.

The social nature of names

Names are not as fixed as we might think - no bad thing necessarily, given the evidence concerning the impact that a name can have. There is a case to be made that names have become much more complex over the last few decades, as illustrated by the choice of first names. For example, for most of history in many Western countries, families typically named their children after a relative, meaning there were typically several Marys or Johns in friendship groups. Only in the 1960s did parents want to give babies names that reflected their individuality.

But choosing a name can be daunting, which is why TikTok has creators with followings of tens of thousands discussing baby names. They reveal baby names they liked but didn't use and baby names they never want to see again; they predict famous influencers' baby names (sometimes with high accuracy) and what names will soon be all over every daycare's class list. Many of these creators have consulting businesses where they help parents-to-be make one of the biggest choices of their lives.

This reflects the constructivist nature of names, which anthropologist Alex Bentley talks about in his theory of 'clever copying.' Bentley argues that 'copying' reflects the way we navigate complex social environments, with parents well aware (as well as seeking out guidance) of the cultural cues, norms and identities relating to naming choices. 'Copying' names is less mindless imitation but rather a form of social learning, where individuals rely on information from others to guide their actions. In the context of names, this makes sense as parents can align with cultural values and social norms and then choose whether to signal a more specific social identity and status or choose a popular name that reduces the risks that can come from standing out.

We can see how brands themselves use this 'clever copying,' such as using prefixes or suffixes that have well-known associations. For example, the 'I' in tech products, such as the iPhone or iMac, which Apple made iconic, or '—if' in brand names like Spotify and Shopify, suggest ease of use and personalisation.

The Future of Naming

If names are moving from an essentialist to constructivist underpinning, what can we expect to see moving forward? We can speculate that much of the future of names will likely be influenced by digital identities: as interactions increasingly occur in virtual and digital spaces, names may evolve to prioritise online handles, usernames, and avatars. And staying in the digital space, names might be more fluid, reflecting how people adopt different identities across various platforms. Gaming culture and virtual worlds have well-developed gamertags and avatars, where people create and change names to suit their online personas. For example, one of the world's most famous gamers, Tyler Blevins, is better known by his gamertag 'Ninja.'

As AI becomes more integrated into our everyday lives, we can expect it to play a more significant role in the development of names. Rather than thumbing through children's name books for ideas, we ask Gen AI for personalised suggestions based on cultural significance, popularity, or desired meanings. A quick online search reveals plenty of A.I. naming tools available online. These tools can, in theory (as we are unsure what they use), draw on existing research to analyse names' social perceptions, predicting how a name might influence someone's opportunities or self-image.

In the context of choosing brand names, A.I. could analyse trends, cultural contexts, and individual preferences to suggest names that resonate most effectively, leading to names optimised for specific purposes or identities. It could also generate product names designed to maximise marketability and SEO.

Counter to ways in which people have changed their names to fit in with other cultures and societies, people are also seeking to recognise and reflect their ethnicity through their names. The actress Thandiwe Newton reclaimed her full name in 2021 after years of being known as 'Thandie', reflecting her Zimbabwean heritage. And the I Am Not A Typo campaign challenges tech companies to ‘correct autocorrect’ in the name of equality and to better reflect a contemporary, multicultural UK. They cite ‘Priti’ (the first name of the UK’s previous Home Secretary) as among the 41% of names of babies born in recent years that are routinely flagged as errors by tech companies in their autocorrect system.

Names could also further evolve to highlight values like freedom (e.g., 'Liberty') or nature (e.g., 'River'). Perhaps there will be a greater acceptance of names changing at different points outside of traditional markers (such as when changing marital status). While this is becoming much more accepted about change in recognition of gender or ethnicity, it could extend to reflect career shifts, personal reinvention, or even as a response to major life experiences or make points such as to make a statement (such as Prince's name change to 'the artists formerly known as Prince' in protest to his record company).

The changing world

With this in mind, and to return to our point at the beginning, are we living in a changing world reflected in and shaped by our naming conventions? This can be hard to unpack. For example, the rise of gender-neutral names such as 'Taylor,' 'Jordan,' and 'Avery' offers inclusivity and the ability to embrace a fluidity of gender identity. Indeed, in 2021, 6% of American babies were given androgynous names, approximately five times the number in the 1880s. This has led some to speculate if we are entering a post-gender world. However, it may not be that parents deliberately choose gender-neutral monikers; instead, they reflect the desire for a unique baby name. And if you invent a new name, then in all likelihood, you are in gender-neutral territory. Nevertheless, the rise of inclusive naming systems (e.g., non-binary, gender-fluid) may also reflect an emerging broader spectrum of identities.

Another example is how technological changes have allowed for genetic analysis of plants and animals, challenging the conventional naming and classification of organisms. The Linnaean system has hierarchical categories (kingdom, phylum, class, etc.) that provide a rigid, bounded structure. Recent advances in genetic analysis have significantly challenged traditional methods of species classification, particularly those based on morphological characteristics. Scientists have found that genetic data often reveals more fluid and overlapping species boundaries than previously recognised. For example, DNA barcoding, which uses short genetic markers to differentiate species, has become essential in uncovering previously hidden genetic similarities and distinctions among organisms. This has led to the discovery of 'cryptic species'—organisms that are morphologically indistinguishable but genetically distinct, fundamentally challenging our approach to naming.

Moreover, what we choose to name—or not name—reflects and shapes our evolving understanding of health in a world with new and emerging threats. The COVID-19 pandemic is a prime example: some initially downplayed it, naming it as a mere cold or flu, while others labelled it a global pandemic, each term carrying different implications for public perception and policy. The term "Long COVID," describing persistent symptoms that continue long after the acute infection, has been a naming challenge, as campaigners have fought to get it recognised as a legitimate condition. We may see even more contention in naming health conditions with emerging health threats, which can influence everything from medical research to access to care.

Another area experiencing naming challenges is mental health, where new terms like "eco-anxiety" or "climate grief" have emerged as responses to modern environmental concerns. These terms illustrate how new health phenomena demand new names, which in turn influence societal recognition and response. Researchers have highlighted the importance of naming these experiences to give people a collective voice in their grief, allowing them to process their emotions in response to ongoing environmental change.

And as new technologies like genetic testing reveal more about disease pathways, this complicates the traditional naming of illness categories. For example, certain cancers, once grouped together based on their location in the body, are now subdivided into new categories based on genetic markers, creating a more nuanced but increasingly complex naming system. Similarly, personalised medicine challenges the conventional naming of diseases by tailoring treatments to the individual's genetic makeup, moving away from broad disease labels. In oncology, next-generation sequencing allows doctors to identify specific genetic mutations within tumours, enabling targeted therapies that are more effective for the patient's unique condition. This personalised approach complicates traditional disease names and classifications, as treatments are increasingly based on molecular features rather than the organ of origin.

As we face new and evolving health risks—ranging from pandemics to environmental changes and new mental health challenges—the process of naming becomes ever more critical. Naming shapes not only how we understand these conditions but also how we respond to them.

Alternative approaches to naming

Our rapidly changing world means naming systems need to catch up. In the past (in relative terms), much of the world inhabited a more stable and predictable world where an 'essentialist' approach to naming made sense. We could treat the world as relatively fixed, with its people and objects having consistent properties. But in an era of change, this approach no longer works. Instead, we need more flexible, context-dependent approaches as these challenge the limitations of increasingly outdated notions of fixed categories and instead work harder to reflect and embrace complexity.

The mental models used to create names look creaky for today's world; we need a behavioural science-driven approach, creating new mental models to underpin names. Drawing on work by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, we can see that these alternative approaches can include:

Description without using names: Instead of assigning fixed names or categories, we can instead use descriptive language that captures the features or nuances without reducing them to a single name. This might be particularly helpful in mental health, for example, which is often complex and doesn't fit neatly into one category.

Context-dependent naming, rather than relying on fixed, universal names, names can change depending on context, situation, or the relationships involved. In legal systems, someone might be called a ‘defendant'‘ in one context but a ‘victim' or ‘witness’ in another. This principle could be so, for example in the patient-doctor relationship where currently, patients are typically labelled in a static way based on their disease or condition (e.g., ‘diabetic,’ ‘cancer patient’) and fails to reflect the various roles a person plays in the healthcare system. To better address this, a patient might be called a ‘patient’ when receiving treatment, a ‘research participant’ when involved in clinical trials, and a ‘health advocate’ when speaking out about their experience to help others.

Process-oriented names can be used so that instead of naming things as static entities, we describe things in terms of processes or ongoing change. This better captures the dynamic nature of reality rather than locking things into fixed categories. In ecology, for example, instead of categorising species in rigid taxonomies, we might describe organisms in terms of their evolutionary relationships and interactions, emphasising adaptation and change rather than static boundaries. So rather than categorising ecosystems as "deserts" or "forests," some ecologists now describe these environments as "biomes in transition" or "successional ecosystems", acknowledging that ecosystems are constantly evolving due to factors like climate change, species migration and human intervention.

Network-based naming is closely related to this, emphasising relationships over categories. Rather than classifying things into distinct categories, this approach focuses on the connections between entities; seeing them as part of a network of relationships avoids reducing things to fixed names and highlights how things interact. This prioritises the fluidity and 'fuzziness' of relationships. For example, in data ontologies (a method of organising data), entities like 'shop' and 'book' could traditionally be categorised separately as distinct items. However, in a network-based approach, the focus shifts to the relationship between these entities. Instead of treating the shop and book in isolation, you describe how they interact, such as the fact that the "shop sells the book." The relationship itself becomes important data.

Polysemy allows for names with multiple interpretations. Here, instead of using one meaning or category for a word or name, we recognise that names can have multiple meanings depending on context, allowing for ambiguity and multiple layers of interpretation. In cultural contexts, for example, certain terms (e.g., "queer") have multiple, sometimes contradictory meanings that reflect different histories, identities, and interpretations.

Metaphorical or poetic names can reflect abstract or hard-to-define concepts more fluidly. These names allow for richer, more varied interpretations than literal naming. For example, metaphors in mystical traditions or philosophy often describe complex ideas like love, consciousness, or the divine. An example from a commercial brand is 'Monster.com' with the metaphor of "monster" representing the challenge and magnitude of the job search.

Beyond language is a final option, using visual, emotional, or experiential forms of communication. For example, in some indigenous cultures, oral traditions, music, dance, and art convey knowledge and understanding, often without rigid names or categories. We can also see how brands use visual elements in their identity—such as Apple's simple logo or Google's doodles—to communicate values beyond just their names.

In conclusion

There are many ways in which names are no longer being accepted as passive labels but are increasingly taking on a fluid quality, where we need behavioural science to support some new approaches to naming.

We have argued that this reflects a changing world where names need to work harder to reflect greater complexity and what their role is changing (such as reflecting a process, fuzziness rather than a fixed property). In addition, if we are in a world where people perhaps have little control over their lives, a name is something that we can often use to express ourselves and shape this changing environment in our own ways.