12

There have been many other threads that discuss a possible name change.

The Community Team has suggested we focus on growing our community first before considering a name change. This logic seems to ignore the fact that our site's name has consequences for the audience we attract and participation rates.

This thread is for voting. If we can show that there is strong support for a name change, we may be able to convince the powers that be to change our name. If there is no consensus, then we will not change our name.

I will try to list all the names I have seen proposed on meta, but feel free to add your own--one per post, though. I have also listed our current name, so if you do not support a name change you may vote for that.

This will be a form of approval voting:

  • Upvote any and all name changes you would agree to
  • Downvote any and all name changes you strongly dislike
  • Do not vote for names to which you are indifferent
  • 1
    Note most of these titles are "X and Y"-- I would suggest voting for a title even if you prefer "Y and X". We'll hash out the details later. – Jeff Mar 30 '13 at 4:16
  • While I would prefer a few of the below listed names to the current, it's worth mentioning that I think it's unlikely the title is driving any of our less desirable metrics, such as the expert:layman ratio. The problem with Cognitive Sciences is not that it yields too many laymen, but that it's somewhat biased against some important minority views of the mind. Management's objection has merit, but it would still be good to resolve this so Meta can focus on more immediate, less divisive problems. – Christian Hummeluhr Mar 30 '13 at 13:22
  • 1
    It would also be worthwhile to summarize objections to the suggestions as comments. Perhaps link to the related topics. – Steven Jeuris Mar 30 '13 at 15:18
  • 1
    To facilitate reaching a consensus, I want to say I am committing to whatever name gets the most votes in this thread, even if it's one I voted against. – Christian Hummeluhr Mar 30 '13 at 17:08
  • 2
    A name change would be so good! I don't think the current name covers the vast range of topics included. For example, given the inclusion of basic neuroscience questions, 'Cognitive Sciences' is so not covering the topics discussed here. – AliceD Aug 3 '15 at 12:14
  • @Jeff is this still ongoing? I also agree that we're accidentally 'out-of-scope'ing valuable neuroscience questions with the name. – j6m8 Aug 17 '15 at 15:14
  • @j6m8 I haven't been active on the site recently. It looks like the name has stuck, but I suspect it could be changed up through the beta period – Jeff Aug 17 '15 at 15:53
  • Upcoming Monday there will be a community chat discussing this issue, as well as a broader 'CogSci reboot' discussion. Hope you can make it as well @Jeff! – Steven Jeuris Jul 12 '17 at 14:05

13 Answers 13

24

Psychology and Neuroscience

   

16

Mind and Brain

       

5

Brain, Mind and Behavior

   

3

Cognitive Science and Psychology

3

Brain and Behavior

   

2

Cognitive Sciences

(leave the name as is)

1

fyi - an exchange like site has arisen for neuroscience, i bet partially because neuroscientists could not find this one. it is here: https://neurostars.org/

  • 1
    I think that one is specific to neuroinformatics, and I think its founders are aware of the existence of CogSci, since they explicitly link to this question on our meta from their about page. I think it is good that they started their own site, a lot of their questions are informatics and programming specific, and would have a hard time finding answers on this site. – Artem Kaznatcheev Apr 14 '16 at 22:30
1

Given that site names with ampersands aren't allowed, I will bring forth:

Cognition

This was suggested as an url before in between a broader discussion, thus seemingly got lost since.

Following Jeromy's guidelines it is:

  • Short (thus good for a URL)
  • Accurate in communicating scope: "The processes are analyzed from different perspectives within different contexts, notably in the fields of linguistics, anesthesia, neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology, education, philosophy, anthropology, biology, systemics, logic, and computer science."
  • Rather unique.

Just like Music: Theory & Practice, hopefully we can argue we would be better off using a combination with the currently top voted name:

Cognition: Psychology and Neuroscience

  • it's 'unique' because nobody who wants to know about mind, brain, neuroscience or psychology would search for or find "cognition". hope this helps. – Christian Hummeluhr May 31 '16 at 17:51
  • True, but neither would you look for Cross Validated. It's just to find common ground which is not a field. – Steven Jeuris May 31 '16 at 18:05
  • I guess if we pick an option that neither appeals to or offends anyone, it's technically common ground. The Starbucks strategy! – Christian Hummeluhr May 31 '16 at 18:10
  • seriously though, we should just leave it because SE has made it clear they don't want us to call ourselves anything we actually identify as – Christian Hummeluhr May 31 '16 at 18:12
  • the ostensible justification doesn't matter at all, because policy is within SE's control anyway. we need a joined name, which is why every real contender was a joined name. It's not on us to choose a half assed name in response to their arbitrary whims, it's on them to bring policy in line with the reality of our field. – Christian Hummeluhr Jun 1 '16 at 4:03
  • 1
    @ChristianHummeluhr I believe we could make a case for the need for a joined name, but we still need to address the URL issue. Just like "Music: Practice & Theory" is "music.stackexchange.com", we could potentially do, "Cognition: Psychology and Neuroscience". This would at least address the URL concern. – Steven Jeuris Jun 1 '16 at 9:48
  • There's only three people who can make the case, so I assume by "we", that's what you mean. If we can get the name we actually wanted by prepending a generic umbrella name, whatever. No skin off my nose. I didn't get the impression the URL was the issue, so ultimately it comes down to what the SECT (interesting ...) says when you propose the format. – Christian Hummeluhr Jun 1 '16 at 10:39
  • 1
    Honestly, the problem of our name is dwarfed by the problem of our moderators delaying decision-making indefinitely while waiting for a non-existent community to reach an undefined consensus criterion. Just do it. – Christian Hummeluhr Jun 1 '16 at 10:42
  • @ChristianHummeluhr It is not true that "[t]here's only three people who can make the case". One of the other reasons was that we still had to grow our community first. But the URL issue was also part of it. We can not 'just do it'. The point is that you (the community) has as much power as the moderators in this regard. They won't listen to just the moderators, they need to see a community behind it. – Steven Jeuris Jun 1 '16 at 10:42
  • There's only three people who can make the case, and I'm not going to hound you for three months until you actually do it this time. You're on your own, Al Capone. – Christian Hummeluhr Jun 1 '16 at 10:44
-1

Brain and Cognitive Sciences

  • MIT's department, not my favorite, but an option – Chuck Sherrington Apr 1 '13 at 3:17
-1

Behavioral Sciences

What I like of the current name, Cognitive Sciences, is the word Sciences. We want high quality well referenced questions and answers that are interesting for people that work in/with science.

The problem with the current name, though catchy, is that not all psychology is cognitive. However, as we start to see on this website, not all questions are about psychology either. There are countless of question that are focused on the body and its movements, instead of the mind. Therefore, we should focus on the behavior of humans and animals.

Finally, the name has everything discussed in this answer; It's short, accurate in its scope and relatively unique. Moreover, the site will be filled with BS topics, which made me grin a little bit (a).

-6

Mind and Behavior

       

-6

Neuropsychocognito

  • A bit off the reservation, but quirky and catchy – Chuck Sherrington Apr 1 '13 at 3:20
  • Permutations also accepted – Chuck Sherrington Apr 1 '13 at 3:21
  • 5
    super-cogni-fragilistic-neuro-alidocious (even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious, if you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious!) – Jeff Apr 1 '13 at 3:23
  • 1
    It's pronounced "Newyogt", based on all of the silent letters. – Chuck Sherrington Apr 1 '13 at 3:25
  • lmao @Jeff, that's hysterical – Josh Apr 3 '13 at 12:14
-9

Mind

       

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .