6 ms·

Last I checked, SSC was the first hit on google when searching for his real name. That would seem to make it rather pointless to believe in the ability of keepi

Last I checked, SSC was the first hit on google when searching for his real name. That would seem to make it rather pointless to believe in the ability of keeping that content hidden from his patients. I’m also not entirely certain it isn’t in the public’s interest to allow patients to read their therapist’s writing. Yes, they shouldn’t be privy to the details of their love life and favorite spot to go skinny dipping. But Scott never disclosed much personal information anyway. I think rather fondly of his writing. But it should be uncontroversial that some of it is, well, controversial. Even if I don’t agree with his critics, I wouldn’t consider it entirely unreasonable to disagree with him on some points. And because so much of it touches on hot-button issues, some of them might very well decide not to share their most private thoughts with him, and could feel betrayed when learning about it only after the fact. It’s also somewhat strange to see a community (his, and here as well in previous posts) complain about unnamed sources any time the news media is discussed, but getting outraged when one publication actually makes it policy to use real names more often. There is a case for anonymity on the internet, and even for others to respect that wish. But at some point, when you start having the sort of cultural influence that Scott has, and your efforts of hiding your name were rather half-hearted to begin with, it’s nobody’s job to play pretend on your behalf.

bpodgursky 6y ago
It costs the NYC nothing to respect his efforts at pseudo-anonymity, as halfhearted as they were. The cause of journalism is not advanced in the slightest by publishing the real name. The problem with "unnamed sources" is there's no fixed point to compare against -- the unnamed source loses nothing by lying or making things up. Scott has a huge amount of reputation to lose if he lies, even if it doesn't directly tie back to his real-life persona. It would be a REALLY long con to blog for a decade to build a reputation, just to be a disreputable unnamed source in an article.
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
Do you already know his real name in order to search it on Google? If you search for "Scott Alexander" then, yes, Slate Star Codex comes up. But that's not the dots he's trying to avoid being connected. He doesn't share his last name on SSC, and his patients probably don't know his middle name.
- Imnimo 6y ago
  Depending on your search engine of choice, given just his first and last name, you will discover either his middle name or his blog on the first or second page of results. If a patient wanted to look him up online, it wouldn't take much, and if a person familiar with his blog wanted to find his real name, it also wouldn't take much. I did it just now in a few minutes of Googling. Now, regardless of all that, it still seems like it would be a nice thing to do for news media to respect his wishes. But it also seems like a bit much to say that publishing his name would be all that significant of a change to his level of anonymity.
  - _-___________-_ 6y ago
    > I did it just now in a few minutes of Googling. A few minutes? Google literally suggests it as an autocomplete for me.
    - Imnimo 6y ago
      That's what I get for using the address bar rather than the actual website!
    - strstr 6y ago
      This was previously not the case. Cat is out of the bag though.
      - toofy 6y ago
        The cats been out of the bag for a long, long time. I mean, look, if he had already had anonymity, I would absolutely be considerably more understanding of the outrage behind this, but let’s be honest, his name has been connected to ssc (simple google search levels of easy) for a long time. That fact has really made me question the motives behind why he chose this particular hill to die on.
        tomhoward 6y ago
jmeister 6y ago
It is definitely in patients’ and Scott’s interest to maintain anonymity. There is a tradition in therapy going back to Freud that the therapist should be a blank slate to the patient(there’s a technical term for this which I can’t recall..)
- david-cako 6y ago
  In a Lacanian sense, the role of the analyst is to be filled up with the images and ideas of the patient. https://nosubject.com/Discourse_of_the_analyst https://nosubject.com/Discourse_of_the_analyst Some may find the Greek term "kenosis" interesting, meaning "emptying". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis I agree that SSC being separate from his psychiatry is pretty important. I like SSC, and at the same time I would find it difficult to go to therapy knowing Scott is behind SSC. It would cause me to fixate on obsessional traits in myself, knowing that he is predisposed to the same thing.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  On the other hand, perhaps his patients should be aware about the fact that their psychiatrist is divulging what they probably thought of as their private information to the entire internet.
  - jmeister 6y ago
    No he’s not. He takes extra care to anonymize the patient descriptions.
    - bb2018 6y ago
      I disagree. I feel like that's up for the patient to decide. If I am going to tell my deepest secrets to someone I'd rather there not even be the faintest idea that details would be written about, even in very general ways.
      - darawk 6y ago
        It's standard practice in psychiatry to publish anonymized patient stories. Your issue is with the entire field, then.
Lazare 6y ago
Google results are very different for different people. SSC is not returned at all when I search for his real name; a result many others have reported in the ongoing discussion about SSC on Hacker News. I'm not sure what that means for your conclusion, but I think you may be overestimating how closely connected SSC and his real name are on average.
faitswulff 6y ago
The fact that replies to this comment contain Scott’s name give the lie to this whole manufactured fiasco.
- nkurz 6y ago
  I think you are mistaking his pseudonym "Scott Alexander" for his real name. These are his first and middle names. His desire is to keep his full legal name from being associated with the blog. His last name has occasionally been published, but I don't think it's visible here in the comments.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    I don’t think a paeudonym is a pseudonym if it uses parts of your real name. For example if my name is Dan Smith and I say “call me Dan”, well, that’s just my name

bpodgursky 6y ago

It costs the NYC nothing to respect his efforts at pseudo-anonymity, as halfhearted as they were. The cause of journalism is not advanced in the slightest by publishing the real name. The problem with "unnamed sources" is there's no fixed point to compare against -- the unnamed source loses nothing by lying or making things up. Scott has a huge amount of reputation to lose if he lies, even if it doesn't directly tie back to his real-life persona. It would be a REALLY long con to blog for a decade to build a reputation, just to be a disreputable unnamed source in an article.

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

Do you already know his real name in order to search it on Google? If you search for "Scott Alexander" then, yes, Slate Star Codex comes up. But that's not the dots he's trying to avoid being connected. He doesn't share his last name on SSC, and his patients probably don't know his middle name.

Imnimo 6y ago
Depending on your search engine of choice, given just his first and last name, you will discover either his middle name or his blog on the first or second page of results. If a patient wanted to look him up online, it wouldn't take much, and if a person familiar with his blog wanted to find his real name, it also wouldn't take much. I did it just now in a few minutes of Googling. Now, regardless of all that, it still seems like it would be a nice thing to do for news media to respect his wishes. But it also seems like a bit much to say that publishing his name would be all that significant of a change to his level of anonymity.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago
  > I did it just now in a few minutes of Googling. A few minutes? Google literally suggests it as an autocomplete for me.
  - Imnimo 6y ago
    That's what I get for using the address bar rather than the actual website!
  - strstr 6y ago
    This was previously not the case. Cat is out of the bag though.
    - toofy 6y ago
      The cats been out of the bag for a long, long time. I mean, look, if he had already had anonymity, I would absolutely be considerably more understanding of the outrage behind this, but let’s be honest, his name has been connected to ssc (simple google search levels of easy) for a long time. That fact has really made me question the motives behind why he chose this particular hill to die on.
      - tomhoward 6y ago

jmeister 6y ago

It is definitely in patients’ and Scott’s interest to maintain anonymity. There is a tradition in therapy going back to Freud that the therapist should be a blank slate to the patient(there’s a technical term for this which I can’t recall..)

david-cako 6y ago
In a Lacanian sense, the role of the analyst is to be filled up with the images and ideas of the patient. https://nosubject.com/Discourse_of_the_analyst https://nosubject.com/Discourse_of_the_analyst Some may find the Greek term "kenosis" interesting, meaning "emptying". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis I agree that SSC being separate from his psychiatry is pretty important. I like SSC, and at the same time I would find it difficult to go to therapy knowing Scott is behind SSC. It would cause me to fixate on obsessional traits in myself, knowing that he is predisposed to the same thing.
heavyset_go 6y ago
On the other hand, perhaps his patients should be aware about the fact that their psychiatrist is divulging what they probably thought of as their private information to the entire internet.
- jmeister 6y ago
  No he’s not. He takes extra care to anonymize the patient descriptions.
  - bb2018 6y ago
    I disagree. I feel like that's up for the patient to decide. If I am going to tell my deepest secrets to someone I'd rather there not even be the faintest idea that details would be written about, even in very general ways.
    - darawk 6y ago
      It's standard practice in psychiatry to publish anonymized patient stories. Your issue is with the entire field, then.

Lazare 6y ago

Google results are very different for different people. SSC is not returned at all when I search for his real name; a result many others have reported in the ongoing discussion about SSC on Hacker News. I'm not sure what that means for your conclusion, but I think you may be overestimating how closely connected SSC and his real name are on average.

faitswulff 6y ago

The fact that replies to this comment contain Scott’s name give the lie to this whole manufactured fiasco.

nkurz 6y ago
I think you are mistaking his pseudonym "Scott Alexander" for his real name. These are his first and middle names. His desire is to keep his full legal name from being associated with the blog. His last name has occasionally been published, but I don't think it's visible here in the comments.
- adamsea 6y ago
  I don’t think a paeudonym is a pseudonym if it uses parts of your real name. For example if my name is Dan Smith and I say “call me Dan”, well, that’s just my name