The NY Times regularly reviews books written by people with perfectly transparent pen names. I don't see why it's relevant especially given the professional consequences.
-
-
Replying to @WatsonLadd @zeynep and
Then maybe Scott Alexander should have chosen to not dox himself and continue to use a pen name back in 2017? The NYTimes "doxed" JK Rowling's pen name after publicly linking her pen name to her real name, and yet no one had an issue then: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/books/review/the-silkworm-by-j-k-rowling-as-robert-galbraith.html …pic.twitter.com/H9z9bbH2Jl
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @KardOnIce @zeynep and
What does it add to the story vs. the career consequences for his psychotherapy career?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WatsonLadd @zeynep and
What does JK Rowling's real name add to a book review about a series of detective novels clearly different from her fiction published under JK Rowling? In fact, JK Rowling did not want to be known as Robert Galbraith at that time.pic.twitter.com/ZdfYbiSMuW
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @KardOnIce @WatsonLadd and
Unlike Rowling however, Scott Alexander published his own name and linked his identities. Any claim that he wants his pseudonym to remain separate from his public identity is therefore nonsensical.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KardOnIce @WatsonLadd and
Maybe if Scott Alexander didn't want his psychiatry career to be linked to his pseudonym "Scott Alexander", he shouldn't have published material linking the two.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KardOnIce @WatsonLadd and
I'm sorry but this is petty tyranny. You should not have some perfect standard people should adhere to before their pen name gets respect by the outlet that has the power to dominate their Google searches for the rest of their lives.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @WatsonLadd and
How is this "petty tyranny". If I want to respect a pseudonym, I don't publish material directly stating the two of them are the same. The Grugq is a well known pseudonym and speaks at conferences, but he doesn't publish his name, so people respect the pseudonym.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KardOnIce @WatsonLadd and
Almost everyone who does pseudonyms but writes enough has slipups and are potentially de-anonymizable with a varying amount effort. I know this because I sometimes do it for people who think they've hidden their tracks very well (they ask me to). Doesn't remove anyone's rights.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @WatsonLadd and
But he published information linking his identities. This isn't a casual slipup. This is in a published and edited book distributed by Springer. This isn't an accidental and deleted comment on a blog.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Again. If you were in his SLC orbit, you could find his name with a bit of effort. It wasn't true the other way: for every random person he met or his patients. A NYT article would change that. That's a lot of power to exercise casually. We'll disagree.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.