TIME Family

Facebook Reveals How Common It Is For Siblings to Have The Same First Initial

The Kardashian Family Celebrates the Grand Opening of DASH Miami Beach
MIAMI BEACH, FL - MARCH 12: Kim Kardashian,Khloe Kardashian and Kourtney Kardashian attends the Grand Opening of DASH Miami Beach at Dash Miami Beach on March 12, 2014 in Miami Beach, Florida. (Photo by Gustavo Caballero/Getty Images) Gustavo Caballero—Getty Images

Kim, Kourtney, and Khloe aren't unique as you thought they were

“For years, parents have been naming their children in clever, or, if you feel less charitable, ‘clever’ way,” Facebook snakily retorts in a blog post that tracks the unconventional decisions parents make when naming their children.

Facebook data scientists compared users listed as siblings with randomly generated pairs (of their respective name) to find out the most common sibling names. And the 10 most common pairs, when compared to chance, were:

  1. Yvette-Yvonne: 37.4 times as often as expected
  2. Faith-Hope: 31.4
  3. Charity-Faith: 24.3
  4. Jami-Jodi: 23.8
  5. Gretchen-Heidi: 22.0
  6. Charity-Hope: 21.2
  7. Kelli-Kerri: 18.9
  8. Latasha-Latoya: 18.5
  9. Eileen-Maureen: 18.4
  10. Colleen-Maureen: 17.0

Where’s Kourtney, Kim, and Khloe?

Furthermore, siblings have an 11% chance of having the same first initial — compared to 7% of randoms.

Facebook

According to Facebook, “the late-teens drop is due to a cultural phenomenon where best friends of that age will often list each other as siblings.”

And chances of having the same first initial goes up considerably when the siblings are twins:

Facebook

 

TIME viral

Apparently, This Is the Apparently Kid’s New Favorite Word

He's pretty adorable about it, too

Five-year-old Noah “Apparently” Ritter has a new favorite word.

That’s right. When the redhead, who came to internet fame for an adorable appearance on a local newscast that involved saying the word apparently approximately 684,760 times, appeared on Ellen Thursday, he told the host that “I got over it now.”

His new go to? “Seriously.”

We can live with that.

Here is the rest of the hilarious interview:

WATCH: Apparently, There Is an Auto-Tune Remix of the Interview With “Apparently Kid”

WATCH: Hilarious Little Kid Completely Steals The Show During a TV News Segment

WATCH: Ellen DeGeneres Dumps Ice Water Over Kim Kardashian For ALS Ice Bucket Challenge on The Ellen Show

MONEY Family

Walmart Swears Your Kids Want This New Smartwatch for Christmas

Vtech Kidizoom Smartwatch
VTech Kidizoom Smartwatch courtesy of VTech

Parents: Don't have a heart attack. It's not the Apple Watch kids are supposedly demanding.

Well, at least not yet. But that may only be because the freshly introduced Apple Watch isn’t on sale until early 2015.

Though critics have voiced plenty of concerns about the new Apple Watch—you still need a phone to use it, battery life is limited—the assumption is that young people especially will be eager to strap on the fancy, futuristic new gizmo and see what it can do. This, in turn, has caused some to rally parents to put up a united front and just say no to kids having Apple Watches, which will sell at retail for a hefty $350 after all.

Lots of kids will have smartwatches anyway—and they’ll get them even before their parents are noodling around excitedly to see what their own Apple Watches can do. According to Wal-Mart, which just released its “Kid-Approved Holiday Toy List,” one of the top gifts young children crave under the tree come December 25 is something of a knockoff of Apple’s hot new gadget. The VTech Kidizoom Smartwatch just entered the marketplace, and after consulting hundreds of children, Wal-Mart claims that it will be one of the hottest toys of the season. VTech lists the product as best for kids ages 4 to 7, and it sells for the comparatively low price of $60.

What does VTech’s Smartwatch do? Mostly, it takes photos and video and can be used for a few games. It has a touch screen, and, yes, it has a clock (50+ different designs) with an alarm and a timer. It doesn’t have Siri or the ability to track your heart rate or communicate with others, so there shouldn’t be any confusing this watch with the Apple offering.

Early reviewers of the device—many of them mommy bloggers who say upfront that they were given one free to test and write about—rave about it, for the most part. A PCMag.com review rated the Kidizoom at four out of five stars, with strong marks given because it’s easy and fun and takes decent videos and photos, but it loses a few points because of limited memory (a few minutes of video and you’re tapped out) and battery life that didn’t live up to what’s promised.

Yet all things considered, there’s good reason to be a little skeptical that kids will make this one of the hottest toys of the season. And if it does wind up being a hot holiday gift, who knows how long this device will actually hold a child’s interest?

Then again, who knows about any of this? A few years back, there was plenty of skepticism about the idea of buying tablets for kids, but before you knew it gadgets like the Leapfrog LeapPad tablet were in high demand around the holidays.

Bear all of this in mind when determining whether or not to purchase the supposedly “Kid-Approved” new smartwatch as a holiday gift. And if you do buy one, good luck convincing your kid that the VTech smartwatch is just as good as Apple’s when its smartwatch goes on sale to the public a few weeks after Christmas.

TIME Family

Why Not Having Kids Makes Some People Crazy

Ray Kachatorian—Photographers Choice

It's less about the children and more about thwarted dreams

The great, worldwide, international jury is still deadlocked over whether having children makes people happier or not. On the one side, there are chubby fingers and first steps and unbridled joy and on the other side, there’s sleep, money and time. But an intriguing new study from the Netherlands suggests that not having children only makes infertile women unhappy if they are unable to let go of the idea of having kids.

It sounds obvious, but here’s the twist: women who already had children but desperately wanted more had worse mental health than women who didn’t have kids and wanted them, but had managed to get over that particular life goal. So it’s not just whether they had kids that made people depressed or content, it’s how badly they wanted them.

The study looked at more than 7,000 Dutch women who had had fertility treatments between 1995 and 2000. They were sent questionnaires about how they were doing and what caused the infertility and whether they had kids. Most of them were doing fine, except for about 6% who still wanted children even a decade or more after their last infertility treatment.

“We found that women who still wished to have children were up to 2.8 times more likely to develop clinically significant mental health problems than women who did not sustain a child-wish,” said Dr Sofia Gameiro, a lecturer at the School of Psychology at Cardiff University in Wales. True, the women who had kids but had undergone fertility treatments for more were less likely to have mental health issues than those who didn’t have kids, but they were still there. The kids hadn’t cured them. “For women with children, those who sustained a child-wish were 1.5 times more likely to have worse mental health than those without a child-wish,” wrote Gameiro. “This link between a sustained wish for children and worse mental health was irrespective of the women’s fertility diagnosis and treatment history.”

The women most likely to be laid low by wanting a child were those with less education and thus probably fewer options for fulfillment. Similarly, if the fertility issues were on the husband’s side or if they were age related, women were more likely to be able to get over it, possibly because they felt there was nothing they could have done. Those most set back by their inability to conceive were those who had started young and found that the problem was with their reproductive system, not their spouse’s, women who in the ancient days might have been called “barren.”

“Our study improves our understanding of why childless people have poorer adjustment. It shows that it is more strongly associated with their inability to let go of their desire to have children. It is quite striking to see that women who do have children but still wish for more children report poorer mental health than those who have no children but have come to accept it,” said Gameiro.

The paper, which was published online on Sept. 10 in Human Reproduction, recommends sustained psychological counseling for people who did not conceive after fertility treatments and a lot of frank talk about the possibility of failure during the treatments. The author also throws some shade on those “I-can-do-anything-if I-try” types (cough, Americans, cough). “There is a moment when letting go of unachievable goals (be it parenthood or other important life goals) is a necessary and adaptive process for well-being,” said Gameiro. “We need to consider if societies nowadays actually allow people to let go of their goals and provide them with the necessary mechanisms to realistically assess when is the right moment.”

TIME Love and Money

Wealthy Kids Are More Affected by Divorce Than Poor Kids

wealth family divorce
Getty Images

And study says it's not just because they suddenly have less money

Children of wealthy families that come apart have a bigger spike in behavior problems than children of poor families who experience the same thing. But wealthier children benefit more from being incorporated into stepfamilies than poorer children do. So says a new study in the latest issue of Child Development, which also noted the kids’ age when parents separate plays a key role, with the most vulnerable stage being from 3 to 5 years old.

The study was conducted by researchers at Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C., and the University of Chicago, using a national sample of nearly 4,000 children from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Researchers divided the kids into three groups by income and studied the effect of a change in family structure on each group.

“Our findings suggest that family changes affect children’s behavior in higher-income families more than children’s behavior in lower-income families — for better and for worse,” says Rebecca Ryan, assistant professor of psychology at Georgetown University, the study’s lead author.

Why do children of high-income parents act out more after separation than children from low-income parents? Ryan isn’t sure. “To be honest, our study finds most conclusively that they do act up more, but says less about why that might be.”

But she has some guesses. The first is that dads, who are usually the breadwinners, often move out of the home so there’s a big dip in household income. Or it could be that the kids have to move to a new neighborhood/school/friend group and the instability takes a toll. Or maybe less-wealthy families don’t take it so hard. “Parental separation is more common among lower-income families,” says Ryan. “Parents and children may perceive family changes as more normative, more predictable, and, thus, less stressful.”

However Ryan says, it’s not just about the money. “Changes in income itself did not seem to explain the increase in behavior problems, which surprised us.” Moreover the changes in behavior were only noticeable if the kids were younger than 5 years old. “We found no effect of parental separation on children ages 6 to 12,” says Ryan.

Another surprise was that wealthier kids older than 6, who were blended into stepfamilies had improvements in their behavior. Ryan and her crew first noticed this when she did a prior study back in 2012, but was still surprised to have those findings confirmed. That study also suggested that parental separation affects kids whose parents were actually married more than those who were cohabiting.

Ryan cautions that the differences between kids whose parents were separated and those who were together was not as strong as the differences among low-, middle- and higher-income families. “These results suggest that many factors other than family structure influence children’s behavior, particularly for children in low-income families. For them, the quality of the home environment, regardless of family structure, mattered most to social and emotional well-being.”

She even wades a little into the debate on whether fixing marriage will help fix poverty or whether you need to fix the poverty to have a shot at saving marriage. She’s on the side of the latter. Programs designed to save marriage, she says, will not be as effective as programs that “enhance the quality of the socio-emotional or educational environments in the home.”

TIME Books

5 Things You Might Not Know About Dr. Seuss

Dr. Seuss, Aug. 11, 1967
From the Aug. 11, 1967, issue of TIME TIME

From TIME's 1967 profile of the beloved author

Dr. Seuss, who died in 1991, is back in the news with the release Tuesday of the new book Horton and the Kwuggerbug and More Lost Stories. The book contains four stories that were published in Redbook in the 1950s, where the celebrated The Cat in the Hat author had a regular column.

In 1967, TIME sent a reporter to cover a summer program for kids at the La Jolla Museum of Art in California, which also starred Theodore Geisel, better known then and now as Dr. Seuss. “If you don’t get imagination as a child, you probably never will,” he said, explaining the need for the program, “because it gets knocked out of you by the time you grow up.”

In honor of his lesser-known stories, here are a few lesser-known facts from that 1967 story:

Dr. Seuss wasn’t necessarily for kids.
The career-making images that TIME cited? An advertising campaign for Flit insecticide.

Dr. Seuss’s wife helped him develop his stories.
Their marriage was financed, TIME reported, by a “cartoon of egg-nog-drinking turtles” that Dr. Seuss sold to Judge magazine in 1927. (Sadly, she died only a few months after that 1967 profile was published.)

Dr. Seuss had no formal art training.
He walked out on “a high-school art teacher who refused to let him draw with his drawing board turned upside down” and that was that. For non-art education, he went to Dartmouth and Oxford.

Dr. Seuss’s early vocabulary was inspired by school curricula.
Many books meant to teach kids reading used standardized lists of basic words that should be known by students of various ages, and Dr. Seuss’ work — despite the fantastical nature of the stories those words created — was no exception. He stopped using the lists when he no longer found them adequate, “because,” TIME explained, “today’s television-viewing children have an expanded vocabulary.”

Dr. Seuss worked on an Oscar-winning animated short film.
Dr. Seuss’s Gerald McBoing-Boing cartoon won the Academy Award in 1951. You can watch it here:

Read the full 1967 profile of Dr. Seuss here, in TIME’s archives: The Logical Insanity of Dr. Seuss

TIME Family

After Ray Rice Video, Twitter Takes a Stand With #WhyIStayed and #WhyILeft

Ravens running back Ray Rice is planning to address the media at 3 p.m. Friday for the first time since he was charged with knocking
Ravens running back Ray Rice, right, and his wife Janay made statements to the news media regarding his assault charge for knocking her unconscious in a New Jersey casino, on May 5, 2014, at the Under Armour Performance Center in Owings Mills, Md. Kenneth K. Lam—Baltimore Sun/MCT/Getty Images

Twin hashtags go viral, leading to widespread public sharing about domestic violence

The recently released video of Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice punching his then fiancée and current wife Janay in an Atlantic City elevator, then dragging her out unconscious, prompted many red flags — about the NFL’s handling of the incident, about the Ravens’ ill-advised defense of their player and about how domestic violence is handled in general.

But one of the main questions doing the rounds was directed at Janay Rice (formerly Janay Palmer) was why she married him in spite of the abusive relationship. Well, Twitter provided the answer, with the hashtag #WhyIStayed.

The hashtag was created by writer Beverly Gooden, who was physically abused by her former husband for over a year. In a post on her website, Gooden explains that it’s not always that simple. “Leaving was a process, not an event,” she writes. “And sometimes it takes awhile to navigate through that process.” Gooden also expressed the hope that the hashtag will help people “find a voice, find love, find compassion, and find hope.”

And the responses were overwhelming. Twitter users even took the conversation a step further, responding with the hashtags #WhyILeft and #WhenILeft sharing the moments when they finally decided they had had enough.

The stories of abuse weren’t restricted to women, either.

Thanks to Twitter, it doesn’t look like this conversation is going to die down anytime soon.

TIME Family

Honey Maid Ad Celebrates Families Changed by Divorce

The graham-cracker maker says divorced families are blended but not broken

First it was family diversity, now it’s families affected by divorce. Honey Maid, the graham-cracker maker with the hot-button ads, has a new marketing campaign that sends this message: “Just because a family has broken up doesn’t mean they are broken.”

Last spring, Honey Made released its first installment of the much-discussed “This Is Wholesome” ad campaign that included same-sex and interracial marriages and had right-wing conservative groups complaining. In its new ad, “#NotBroken,” the company celebrates families that have been reconfigured through divorce.

“Of the 73 million American children under the age of 18, 1 in 10 is currently living within a stepfamily environment,” said Gary Osifchin, senior marketing director of biscuits for Mondelez International, which owns Honey Maid.

At a time when 42% of American adults are members of a “blended” family (i.e. have at least one steprelative) according to the Pew Research Center, Honey Maid’s strategy could be a winning one.

“We’ve seen an overwhelming response to the ‘This Is Wholesome” campaign and we feel that it is critical to continue sharing stories and advertising that truly reflects our consumers,” Osifchin said.

The ad has been released in advance of National Stepfamily Day on Sept. 16 and Honey Maid is encouraging people to use the hashtags #NotBroken and #ThisIsWholesome to highlight themes raised in the ad.

TIME Family

Why Being Second Born Can Be a Royal Pain

Meet the family: It's that little one on the right you have to watch out for
Meet the family: It's that little one on the right you have to watch out for JOHN STILLWELL; AFP/Getty Images

An open letter to George's Number Two: regal or not, second-borns can get a rotten deal

Dear Pending Prince or Princess:

First of all, the other seven billion of us are just thrilled to hear the happy news that you’re on the way—in a gender yet to be announced and with a name yet to be determined. I realize you’ll have your hands full for the next several months doing things like, well, growing hands, so I don’t want to burden you with too much right now. But before long you’ll emerge into the world and meet your royal Mum and Dad—and guess what? You’ll have a royal big brother too.

I know, I know, sorry to break it to you. You were kind of hoping you’d be the first and, if it were at all possible to arrange it, the only. Well, welcome to the club, kid. From one Number Two to another, here’s a frank admission: it’s a lousy gig—except when it’s great.

Every first child will always be a family’s crown prince or princess, which is all the more relevant in your family because the whole crown thing is for real. As a rule, first-borns are more serious than later-borns; they work harder, are better students and their IQ tends to be about three points higher than that of second-borns. They are also much more inclined than later-borns to go into the family business—which, yes, in your case is kind of the whole point. You should get accustomed to hearing your brother and you referred to as “an heir and a spare,” which is a term you won’t understand at first, then you will, and will go on to loathe for the rest of your natural life.

There’s a reason all this is true—and in commoner families too, not just yours. Think of your clan not so much as just Royal Family, but as Royal Family Inc. Moms and Dads have a finite supply of hours, energy and money—though in some families (we’re not pointing fingers here) there’s a little more of the latter than in others. The point is, your parents pour all their resources into the first product to come off the assembly line (let’s call it, for example, George v. 1.0). By the time the next one rolls along (let’s call this one You v. 2.0) there’s no getting that early investment back. This is what’s known to business people as sunk costs, which you’ll learn about at Eaton and Oxford and will later get to forget about because your exchequers and ministers will see to such things. The point is, in both a family and a company, sunk costs lead the board of directors (Mum and Dad in your case) to value the first product more than the second, whether they realize it or not.

This is an arrangement that suits that first product just fine, which is why big brothers and sisters tend to play by the rules. Your job—and the job of any littler royals who may come along after you—will be to try to upset that order. It’s why later-borns tend to be more rebellious and to take more risks than first-borns. You’ll be likelier to play extreme sports than big bro George. Even if you and he play the same sports, you’ll choose a more physical position—a baseball catcher, say, instead of an outfielder. (Baseball is…never mind. Ask someone in the royal court what the soccer and polo analogy are.) In the event you ever become Ruler of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of other Realms and Territories around the world—and you’re fourth in line for the job, so don’t start getting measured for the cape yet—you’d be a more liberal, less conventional monarch than your big bro will be.

Later-borns are more inclined to be artists too, and if there is a comedian in the family, it’s likeliest to be the very last-born. This makes sense, since when you’re the smallest person in the nursery, you are in constant risk of getting clocked by someone bigger—sorry, no royal dispensation on that rule—so you learn to disarm with humor. You also may find you’re more empathic and intuitive than George, since you similarly have to know how to suss out what people are thinking in order to get your way—what scientists call a low-power strategy, rather than the big sib’s high-power one.

There are other perils that come with being a number two, not least figuring out ways to get yourself noticed, and it’s best to go about that one carefully. One day, ask your Uncle Andy about a special friend of his named Miss Stark—and if you really want to get a laugh, call her Auntie Koo. Ask Uncle Harry to show you pictures of his recent visit to a Las Vegas hotel. On second thought, don’t, but do remember that there is only a narrow window available to you for being photographed naked—you’ll get a grace period of about 12 months after you arrive. Uncle Harry exceeded that by a teensy bit.

The point is, you’ll have to figure out ways to be special, to make a difference, while staying off of TMZ and out of the tabs. The upside? Well, you know that thing about big sibs having a higher IQ? That’s because they mentor and look after the little sibs, which isn’t half bad (trust another Number Two’s word on this one too). And if more kids come along, you get to be the mentor, which is its own kind of wonderful. The downside? Then you’ll be a middle child. And I hate to tell you kid, but that gig stinks no matter who you are.

But all that comes later. For now, enjoy the quiet, brace for the noise, and travel safe.

–A Friend in the Colonies

TIME People

The Royal Baby’s Relations: William, Kate — And Shakespeare?

TIME, July 5, 1982
From the July 5, 1982, issue of TIME TIME

The new baby will also be a descendent of Count Dracula's

With Monday’s news that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting their second child, it was Royal Baby Fever all over again. But, though big brother Prince George is recent history’s most famous recipient of such fervor, he’s far from the first. When father-to-be Prince William arrived on June 21, 1982, TIME commented that even the most anti-royal publications — like the French Communist paper L’Humanité — were glad to celebrate the news.

And TIME was no exception to that rule, as seen in the birth announcement above. The magazine, in its longer story about the news, commented on the as-yet-unnamed baby’s likely nomenclature — “George,” his future heir’s name, was the odds-on favorite; “William” had 5-to-1 odds and “Elvis” was a longshot at 1,000-to-1 — and well-documented lineage. Some history buffs had hoped the baby might be named “Arthur,” after that most famous British king, but pulling a sword from a stone would be unnecessary:

His lineage is exhaustively, and sometimes imaginatively, chronicled, and dazzlingly diverse. The boy who will be the 22nd English Prince of Wales is descended not only from William the Conqueror but also from Harold II, the last Anglo-Saxon King, who died fighting William at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and from Llywelynap-Gruffydd, the last native Prince of all Wales. Other ancestors include Count Dracula and King Cole, Genghis Khan, as well as Vladimir Monomakh, Great Prince of Kiev in the 12th century, Charlemagne, St. Louis (King of France), and on the Queen Mother’s side, a plumber’s daughter named Mary Carpenter. The pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon Chronicle maintains that he is a descendant of Woden, the Germanic god who gave his name to Wednesday. He is related also to Shakespeare (perhaps), Melesende, Queen of Jerusalem, the Danish Kings Sweyn Forkbeard and Ulf Sprakalegg, George Washington, Jimmy Carter and a 9th century buccaneer named Rollo the Ganger. Nevertheless, he is the most purely British heir to the throne since James I. Some genealogists, sounding like truth-in-labeling analysts, noted happily that he is all of 58.8% British.

Which means that the new baby will also be a descendant of Count Dracula’s and a relation of Shakespeare’s and George Washington’s.

And, with few details about the new baby available yet, it’s also possible that the new baby will be something different, too: a girl. Though royal-baby-watchers in the ’80s got their fill of the lineage of Ulf Sprakalegg, that’s been an element missing from the royal baby mix for six decades, and one that observers even then were eager to see.

The birth of a healthy, wanted baby anywhere in the world is always cause for rejoicing,” wrote a TIME reader in a response to the magazine’s coverage of Prince William’s birth — but something was still missing. “The maudlin delight that the new royal baby in England was male is sickening,” she continued. “England’s greatest decades have always been in the reigns of its Queens.”

Read the full report on Prince William’s June 21, 1982, birth here, in TIME’s archives: Rejoice! A Prince Is Born

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser