Friendship invitation planner

The archived game below selects a preset fictional result. It is separate from the design tool above and cannot measure rarity, predict a future or reveal another person’s feelings.

About the archived wording: percentage, rarity, IQ, timed-performance and mind-reading claims in the original copy below are fictional challenge language, not measured findings. The rules and result labels are preserved for entertainment.

Every friendship leaves a paper trail — inside jokes, borrowed sweaters, messages sent at hours no reasonable person is awake. The detector reads that trail. Type in your suspects, and the machine cross-references loyalty records, chaos incidents, and snack-sharing history to identify the one true bestie hiding in plain sight.

A word from the detective on duty: this device is confident, not gentle. It names exactly one friend and states precisely what makes them yours. Screenshot the verdict, send it to the accused, and let the rest of your circle argue the appeal among themselves.

Five names once covered nearly everybody

Read through English parish registers from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and the range of first names is startlingly narrow. A handful of them, William and John and Thomas and Richard and Robert on one side, Elizabeth and Mary and Anne on the other, account for the large majority of everyone baptised. Duplication was not a problem anybody was trying to solve. It was the system working as intended.

Names came from family and godparents rather than from taste. Several regions kept explicit conventions, with the eldest son named for his father's father, the second for his mother's father and so on down a fixed ladder, which is why the same few names cycle through a family tree for generations and why genealogists can sometimes guess a grandparent before finding the record. Households routinely held two or three living relatives sharing one name, told apart by nicknames that never reached paper.

Fashion with nobody doing the advertising

What changed later is not that parents grew more inventive but that the pool widened enormously. Across the twentieth century the share of babies given the single most popular name of their year fell steeply, and it has kept falling. The sociologist Stanley Lieberson made the useful observation that naming is fashion in an unusually pure form: no company profits from a name, nobody buys advertising for one, and yet names rise and fall in waves as orderly as hemlines.

What spreads is often a sound rather than a specific name, a favoured ending or a soft opening consonant or a particular rhythm, which is why clusters of unrelated names crest together and fade together. There is also a rough three-generation delay at work. A name has to travel far enough to stop belonging to your parents and start belonging to a great-grandmother, at which point it reads as characterful rather than dated. That is roughly why the Adas and Arthurs and Florences came back.

The practical upshot is that a group of friends' names is a fairly precise fingerprint of the decade you were all born in, and of the places your families were living at the time. Which is more than this page can claim to know, and considerably more interesting than the result it will hand you.

Friendship invitation planner