7 ms·

Isn't that a risk for every writer, not just a practicing psychiatrist?

throwaway894345 6y ago
As I understand it, if a patient Googles him and reads about his views it can affect the patient’s treatment. Even in the general “ordinary writers” case, writing pseudonymously is a well-established convention, and many people including the NYT are happy to protect one’s identity if they have the right politics.
- arkitaip 6y ago
  That sounds like nonsense. Is his goal for his patients to never ever get hold of his opinions in case they might disagree with him?
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    I think the idea is that therapy should focus on the patient and anything that might distract the course of therapy is harmful to the patient (deprives them of effective therapy treatment).
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    Ideally. Or in case they might agree with him. The therapeutic relationship should be one where the therapist offers the patient a mirror/lens/toolbox regarding their own views and behavior, and a patient's beliefs about their therapist's biases one way or another can interfere with that.
  - jcims 6y ago
    Seems incredibly plausible to me. Not that his patients would disagree with him, but that they would no longer trust him.
  - Veen 6y ago
    The majority of the psychiatric community disagrees with you. They believe the patient should not form personal relationships with psychiatrists and therapists, including not being aware of a psychiatrist’s positions on political and social issues. They have patients with a wide range of views, some of whom rely on their treatment to maintain their psychological well-being and mental health. It can be dangerous for them to have that relationship disrupted by disagreements about orthogonal issues. Psychiatrists are not primarily concerned to protect themselves, although that is a factor; they are largely motivated by a desire to avoid endangering their patient by disrupting their treatment. You might want to argue that it’s Alexander’s fault for writing a semi-pseudonymous blog in the first place, but that doesn’t help his patients. And I might agree with the view that exposing him is justified if the article actually revealed something of public interest-that he was a Nazi or a pedophile, for example-but it doesn’t. It’s a thin tissue of spurious guilt by association and mischaracterization. The NYT have decided that any risk to Alexander’s patients is less important than naming him in a low-quality hit piece. What they have done is immoral.
- mola 6y ago
  So he shouldn't have written a highly publicized psuedo anonymous blog. He chose this avenue, as a rationalist he must have estimated the risk, and took it. NYT didnt doxx him, because he is the one who chose to publicized himself. You can't eat the cake and have it too. They protect sources exposing things that won't be exposed without anonimity, how does Scott Siskind fit this description?
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    It’s pretty easy to say in hindsight that Scott should have predicted from the earliest days that journalism in general and NYT in particular would have shifted sharply toward capriciousness and sensationalism and that his blog would have been so successful as to piss off the newspaper of record. Whatever, you can have that point if you want it—Scott should have been more careful. > NYT didnt doxx him, because he is the one who chose to publicized himself. You can't eat the cake and have it too. To be clear, you are arguing that “blogging under a pseudonym” is exactly the same thing as one of the most popular papers in the world publishing your real name in a hit piece? > They protect sources exposing things that won't be exposed without anonimity, how does Scott Siskind fit this description? I’m having a hard time parsing this. Can you rephrase?
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      He knew his real name was an open secret. He published at least 1 piece under both names. He thought about starting over with a new pseudonym but decided not to.

As I understand it, if a patient Googles him and reads about his views it can affect the patient’s treatment. Even in the general “ordinary writers” case, writing pseudonymously is a well-established convention, and many people including the NYT are happy to protect one’s identity if they have the right politics.

arkitaip 6y ago
That sounds like nonsense. Is his goal for his patients to never ever get hold of his opinions in case they might disagree with him?
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I think the idea is that therapy should focus on the patient and anything that might distract the course of therapy is harmful to the patient (deprives them of effective therapy treatment).
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  Ideally. Or in case they might agree with him. The therapeutic relationship should be one where the therapist offers the patient a mirror/lens/toolbox regarding their own views and behavior, and a patient's beliefs about their therapist's biases one way or another can interfere with that.
- jcims 6y ago
  Seems incredibly plausible to me. Not that his patients would disagree with him, but that they would no longer trust him.
- Veen 6y ago
  The majority of the psychiatric community disagrees with you. They believe the patient should not form personal relationships with psychiatrists and therapists, including not being aware of a psychiatrist’s positions on political and social issues. They have patients with a wide range of views, some of whom rely on their treatment to maintain their psychological well-being and mental health. It can be dangerous for them to have that relationship disrupted by disagreements about orthogonal issues. Psychiatrists are not primarily concerned to protect themselves, although that is a factor; they are largely motivated by a desire to avoid endangering their patient by disrupting their treatment. You might want to argue that it’s Alexander’s fault for writing a semi-pseudonymous blog in the first place, but that doesn’t help his patients. And I might agree with the view that exposing him is justified if the article actually revealed something of public interest-that he was a Nazi or a pedophile, for example-but it doesn’t. It’s a thin tissue of spurious guilt by association and mischaracterization. The NYT have decided that any risk to Alexander’s patients is less important than naming him in a low-quality hit piece. What they have done is immoral.
mola 6y ago
So he shouldn't have written a highly publicized psuedo anonymous blog. He chose this avenue, as a rationalist he must have estimated the risk, and took it. NYT didnt doxx him, because he is the one who chose to publicized himself. You can't eat the cake and have it too. They protect sources exposing things that won't be exposed without anonimity, how does Scott Siskind fit this description?
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  It’s pretty easy to say in hindsight that Scott should have predicted from the earliest days that journalism in general and NYT in particular would have shifted sharply toward capriciousness and sensationalism and that his blog would have been so successful as to piss off the newspaper of record. Whatever, you can have that point if you want it—Scott should have been more careful. > NYT didnt doxx him, because he is the one who chose to publicized himself. You can't eat the cake and have it too. To be clear, you are arguing that “blogging under a pseudonym” is exactly the same thing as one of the most popular papers in the world publishing your real name in a hit piece? > They protect sources exposing things that won't be exposed without anonimity, how does Scott Siskind fit this description? I’m having a hard time parsing this. Can you rephrase?
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    He knew his real name was an open secret. He published at least 1 piece under both names. He thought about starting over with a new pseudonym but decided not to.