5 ms·

In your example there's no downside to changing the name, though. It's a low stakes decision. In the book "Trust- a Very Short Introduction" the author argues

In your example there's no downside to changing the name, though. It's a low stakes decision. In the book "Trust- a Very Short Introduction" the author argues if the situation is "low stakes" you should need a lower level of evidence to trust someone than high stakes. While I think the author might discuss it only in the context of human interactions, I imagine you could apply the paradigm to this situation.

zepto 5y ago
> In your example there's no downside to changing the name, though. Changing a name in response to a conflicted and un-valid paper is a downside in itself.
- staticman2 5y ago
  It didn't require a scientific paper to create the mascot but you seem to be arguing it requires a "good paper" that's been validated to rename it? You are demonstrating a status quo cognitive bias.
  - mc32 5y ago
    So if someone comes up with a paper that says the opposite (that using native American names) has a proven (by the a paid study) positive impact, since it's low stakes, we should go ahead and name teams after native American tribes?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - staticman2 5y ago
      I think we were talking about high school mascots not team names. Are those two scenarios equally low stakes? In one you change the high school mascot from a native american cartoon to an animal or something. I'm assuming native americans were not consulted with the creation of the mascot to begin with. In the other we change... what all the teams names? Is that a equivilent scenario? To be honest I'm finding it hard to relate to someone would care enough about a high school mascot to even need a study at all. Low stakes B.S. But that's me. Since this topic is probably of zero importance to anyone not native american who else is going to fund it, for that matter?
      - zepto 5y ago
        > I'm assuming native americans were not consulted with the creation of the mascot to begin with. Seems like you are affirming the consequent and assuming it is harmful to native Americans. You are ignoring the issue of the paper. If the decision is based on a scientific paper, but the paper is conflicted or unvalidated, that is harmful because of the misuse of the scientific paper. If you want to change the mascot because of Native American’s preferences, that is a different matter.
        staticman2 5y ago
        Has anyone else studies this topic? If not it's kind of a catch 22 for the tribe, isn't it? Nobody wants to fund research on the topic, so when they fund research on it it's presumed invalid because of bias?
        zepto 5y ago
        This comment ignores the problem and seems to imply that we should accept a bad paper because the tribe is a victim of some kind. How does that address the harm done by basing decisions on bad science?
DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
> It's a low stakes decision At least not until the reactionary media's outrage machine decides to make it their current hill to die on... Also, this is America, where sports are taken far too seriously.

zepto 5y ago

> In your example there's no downside to changing the name, though. Changing a name in response to a conflicted and un-valid paper is a downside in itself.

staticman2 5y ago
It didn't require a scientific paper to create the mascot but you seem to be arguing it requires a "good paper" that's been validated to rename it? You are demonstrating a status quo cognitive bias.
- mc32 5y ago
  So if someone comes up with a paper that says the opposite (that using native American names) has a proven (by the a paid study) positive impact, since it's low stakes, we should go ahead and name teams after native American tribes?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - staticman2 5y ago
    I think we were talking about high school mascots not team names. Are those two scenarios equally low stakes? In one you change the high school mascot from a native american cartoon to an animal or something. I'm assuming native americans were not consulted with the creation of the mascot to begin with. In the other we change... what all the teams names? Is that a equivilent scenario? To be honest I'm finding it hard to relate to someone would care enough about a high school mascot to even need a study at all. Low stakes B.S. But that's me. Since this topic is probably of zero importance to anyone not native american who else is going to fund it, for that matter?
    - zepto 5y ago
      > I'm assuming native americans were not consulted with the creation of the mascot to begin with. Seems like you are affirming the consequent and assuming it is harmful to native Americans. You are ignoring the issue of the paper. If the decision is based on a scientific paper, but the paper is conflicted or unvalidated, that is harmful because of the misuse of the scientific paper. If you want to change the mascot because of Native American’s preferences, that is a different matter.
      - staticman2 5y ago
        Has anyone else studies this topic? If not it's kind of a catch 22 for the tribe, isn't it? Nobody wants to fund research on the topic, so when they fund research on it it's presumed invalid because of bias?
        zepto 5y ago
        This comment ignores the problem and seems to imply that we should accept a bad paper because the tribe is a victim of some kind. How does that address the harm done by basing decisions on bad science?

DaiPlusPlus 5y ago

> It's a low stakes decision At least not until the reactionary media's outrage machine decides to make it their current hill to die on... Also, this is America, where sports are taken far too seriously.