So, this "only question" formulation is a little awkward and I'm not really sure what it means. For my part I endorse correctly using (grades + name) as evidence, and I doubt that doing so is at all common when it comes to socially marked names... that is, I expect that most people evaluate each source of information in isolation, failing to consider to what extent they actually overlap (aka, screen one another off).
So, this "only question" formulation is a little awkward and I'm not really sure what it means.
ChristianKI brought up the proposition "(name)>(grades)" where > means that the prediction accuracy is higher, but the truth or falsity of that proposition is irrelevant to whether or not it's epistemically legitimate to include name in a decision, which is determined by "(name+grades)>(grades)".
I doubt that doing so is at all common when it comes to socially marked names
Doing things correctly is, in general, uncommo...
Another month has passed and here is a new rationality quotes thread. The usual rules are: