So, I could be charitably described as mid-career, and I had this discussion a few times a couple decades ago -- in which I took the position you have. It's not

So, I could be charitably described as mid-career, and I had this discussion a few times a couple decades ago -- in which I took the position you have. It's not an unreasonable position. I was a PC member for what is now called NeurIPS, and I remember one particular disagreement with a conference co-chair who advocated blinded reviews. I have since come to believe that the above objections to blinding are mistaken, and that things should generally be moved to double-blind where at all possible. What happened is, I participated in blinded review processes (for proposals and for conferences) and they turned out to be different. Just that level of de-coupling -- where you aren't 100% sure that the author/proposer is who you suspect -- turns out to matter a great deal psychologically. It changes the framing. And more important, the results seem better.