I’ve been having a friendly wrestle about a famous former scientist I wont’t mention, on a site I won’t mention either, in which I have been engaged in friendly banter with a number of militant atheists.
Oh dear, I feel a cuddly yellow dog coming on. For medicinal purposes only, of course.
Did you spill my pint?
Sorry – that was a misprint. What I meant was…
Dog, in a state of not caring a tinker’s cuss about the existence of God. Yesterday.
But that’s by-the-by: it occurred to me that most blogs allow comments from people under pseudonyms, which, I guess, allows them to be ruder than they might be were they writing under their real names, or if you met them in person.
I then started to wonder whether some of these people mightn’t even be Nature authors, although one wouldn’t know unless they told you, because people submitting papers for possible publication are almost always scrupulously polite.
I do wonder whether the remarkable politesse of NN is related to the fact that people contribute as themselves, rather than as avatars or personae? I must say I am uneasy at having someone write as Charles Darwin, whose identity is secret, though I am mollifed that this person is scrupulously writing ‘in character’.
Then I thought about peer review, a subject aired amply elsewhere (such as NPG’s Peer-to-Peer blog). I don’t particularly want to get into that subject here, except to say that even though Nature referees are anonymous (unless they ask otherwise) the editors know who they are, and can ask them to moderate their language, if necessary (it rarely is).
However, I do wonder whether people who write under a nom de blog feel they have more licence than those who write under their own names?
I’m all in favour of nom de blogs. Lots of PhD students / PharmaGossipers / female science professors couldn’t write their excellent blogs under their real name, at least not without risking their career.
Pseudonyms in comment threads I’m not so sure about – they probably do allow for more rudeness but then in theory the blog author should be stepping in and moderating anything particularly loathsome anyway (in fact I think it’s quite shameful if they don’t – don’t know if this has happened on your unnamed site, Henry, but I hope so).
That said:
Oh, do mention the site – I’d like to experience your ‘friendly banter’ from a safe distance.
I belong to an online discussion forum for authors who also blog, and there has been a fair amount of discussion over anonymity (we’re about half and half on our blogs). Those who go for anonymity often feel that they could either be subject to personal attack, or they are revealing information about (say) a company they work for and don’t want that to be generally known.
I personally prefer openness wherever possible (and also my stomach churns when people have screen names like ‘fluffy wombat 73’ or whatever), and I much prefer open blogging, but I could see the point of being anonymous over specific issues, and perhaps commenting on a blog or starting an extra blog anonymously where required.
What we do on said discussion group is we are all open about who we are, but we have an ‘anonymous’ log in that anyone can use if they want to post something they feel might put their careers at risk etc.
I think there’s a big difference between anonymous and pseudonymous. They are spelled differently for a start.
For some people, their blog name is more recognisable than their real name (I have it on bad authority that PZ Myers is actually the Archbishop of York), so they can’t afford to be rude and obnoxious, otherwise their online reputation will suffer. The names of many of the pseudonymous science bloggers are open secrets.
The tone of a blog is set by the writer, and if you don’t like it you have to either accept it for what it is or move on. I’ve given up on the Pharyngula comments, because I get the same reaction as Henry. And I’m an atheist.
I think the politeness around here is driven by the community. Almost everyone is/was involved in science as a professional, so we all know how we should behave towards our colleagues. It’s also self-policing, because anyone who deviates too far from accepted behaviour is told in a fairly gentle way (for example by having photos of yellow cards waved at them), unless they go too far, and Maxine has to step in with her bannination button.
I’ve given up on the Pharyngula comments, because I get the same reaction as Henry. And I’m an atheist.
“Captain McKneegrasper!”
“How did you know my name?”
“Lucky guess.”
You’re still tied to real world tropes, Henry. Pseudonyms aren’t a problem, and have a long and honorable history, as long as they are maintained and are tied to a specific online identity. You might also be shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that many of the names you encounter on the net that sound like real people’s names are still pseudonyms. The sneakiest people on the net don’t call themselves “Fluffybunny071”, they rename themselves as “John Smith” or “Bob O’Hara” or “Henry Gee”, when their real name is Hildegarde McTinkles.
And come on, you gave as good as you got. I didn’t see that the fact that your screen name corresponds to the one on your birth certificate imposed some kind of mannered constraint on the expression of your opinions.
Nice of you to drop by, Dr McTinkles.
And come on, you gave as good as you got.
Perhaps. But after a while it seemed like swimming in small circles, in treacle, while wearing wellies. It got very tiring. When people started making fun of Ultra-Orthodox Jews (who are too easy to make fun of, so why bother?) I decided I’d had enough.
I went to sleep thinking I’d continue the discussion next day, because I had all sorts of things to say, the kinds of ripostes one only thinks about when one is offline.
But when I woke up I thought … ah, the hell with it. Nobody is ever going to change their minds on this one. Not ever. So why bother? Which is kind of a shame, really, because under all the noise there is, occasionally, an interesting signal.
I didn’t see that the fact that your screen name corresponds to the one on your birth certificate imposed some kind of mannered constraint on the expression of your opinions.
Yes, and I feel rather ashamed of myself now, but I was honest enough to use my real name, which everyone knows is real.
Pseudonyms aren’t a problem, and have a long and honorable history, as long as they are maintained and are tied to a specific online identity.
Sorry, this is an appeal to tradition, and tradition is a bad arbiter – many countries have long and ‘honorable’ traditions of cockfighting and bear baiting.
I’d suggest the proliferation of pseudonyms on the internet reflects the fact that in the early days it was mostly occupied by immature students (is that tautology?), who wanted to be like someone in the Lord of the Rings or Star Trek or whatever, and has spread with sickly lack of taste ever since.
To be honest I’ve no objection to the fact that Henry is really called Aardvark Nooodlestrup (sorry, Henry should I have kept it secret?) – it is more the FluffyBunny84’s that irritate me.
Ah, so it’s not so much pseudonyms that upset you, Brian. It’s pseudonyms without any class or style. I’m fully with you, then.
Henry – I managed to find your moment amongst the hoards. I think it’s a great advertisement for allowing comments to include photos of the furrier members of one’s household.
Yes, I think that some people who write under pseudonyms feel more at liberty to say exactly what they think…and also be as rude as they like – which makes things awkward when they’re ‘outed’ (or inadvertently ‘out’ themselves).
Yes, it is a difficult one.
I have been attacked on blogs after making what I thought was an inocuous comment, and been reduced to tears. I’ve joined in comment threads and been rounded upon, which is why I rarely bother going to Seed blogs and similar now. I am all for a bit of robust humour and opinionating, but I do like a bit of conversation with my porridge, and not only spleen.
I’ve also witnessed quite horrible comment threads that are clearly written by people for whom the term “recreational outrage” is a mild starting point. (We saw an example on the Wired blog that Anna Kushnir wrote). Commenters shoot in from somewhere (obviously having been alerted as a group) and fire really nasty, personal venom (eg I saw one recently about autism and vaccines which was just terrible).
I agree with Euan’s points. There are people who have their reasons for not revealing their real names and who are mature enough not to abuse that protection. There are people who use their real names who write nasty stuff. So you can’t generalise. There are lots of pseudonymous blogs outside science that also exist because the world does not know who the blogger is, and one only has to think of oppressive political regimes where bloggers have to protect their lives.
Many bloggers don’t moderate their comment threads, especially if the ranters are agreeing (“chiming in”) with the blogger. I have got to a point where, as a consumer of the interet, I’m very selective about what I read and even more selective about where I comment. A few nasty attacks is all it takes to make reasonable people withdraw in disgust or fear, or because it is all so trivial —hence the more rational points of view are airbrushed out. Wisdom of the crowds, eh?
Someone wrote in Anna’s comment thread about her Wired blog that sociopaths love the combination of distance and intimacy that the Internet provides.
Brian, I think it is more Lord of the Flies than Lord of the Rings. Trolls are fairly ephemeral. I see that they do provide a useful purpose, that of inuring us to modest and perhaps unintended insults.
I think a serious problem is that scientific discourse does require more social adeptness than some scientists are capable of, which I see as very unfortunate. As Henry pointed out in another thread and in another context, discrimination against women on the grounds of gender implies an equal and opposite discrimination against men.
Discrimination against people on the basis of their social rudeness implies an equal and opposite discrimination in favor of people who are not socially rude.
Politeness as a social nicety is desirable in many social situations. It is unfortunate if the politeness of an individual influences scientific judgments about the individual’s work in either a positive or negative direction.
The Andrew Wakefield MMR fiasco is a case in point. Giving Andrew Wakefield the benefit of the doubt out of being polite has caused MMR vaccination rates to drop and recently a child died of measles.
Well, David, all I can say is that you should be thankful you did not put that last paragraph of your comment on one of the blogs (eg one of the Huffington post ones) on this issue. Frothing at the mouth does not begin to describe it.
I actually went to a “talk” that David Kirby presented. It made me nauseous and angry. He is so completely smarmy and slimy. His rhetoric in person is completely different than on his blog. Claims to not be a scientist but feels competent to take non-technical symptom descriptions, jumble the words around and turn it into a medical diagnosis. Claims to have no “opinion” on what the cause of autism is but all the distortion he applies to the literature is in only one direction. He is ready to quote liars if they say what he wants to hear. He did reference the Wakefield measles studies finding measles virus and didn’t mention that they had been retracted and that every PCR positive was a false positive.
The Huffington Post is a marketing site. They censor the comments and delete anything they don’t like. I consider them and the anti-vaxers to be merchants of death; people who profiting from the misery of others, misery that they are willing to cause and exacerbate. They impute monstrous evil to MDs and everyone involved with vaccines, that they are poisoning children to make a few pennies profit. That is obviously pure psychological projection on their part. They impute those behaviors onto others because that is exactly what they would do. That is exactly what they are doing; injuring and putting children at risk to make a few pennies.
One of the reasons I spend a fair amount of time on the autism blogs is to counter some of the disinformation being put there by quacks.
I don’t go to the Huffington Post. They are not selling facts, they are selling their own brand of Kool-Aid. If I put that comment on the Huffington Post they would simply delete it. It would never be seen by anyone. But they might sic their hoards on me. The Huffington Post does allow anonymous comments, Dr. Grinker left one and was “outed” by David Kirby Who says he “was unaware” it was against the rules to identify anonymous posters.
Some of us do not have sufficient command of the English language to be able to make appropriately vituperative remarks when dealing with real-life monsters.
That distance and intimacy line in the comment was brilliant, Maxine. I wish people would pause for a second and ask themselves if they would say that same hurtful thing if the target of their meanness was in front of them, physically, instead of dissolved in the internet. It’s very easy to forget that there are real people reading what you write. I think that’s why using real names don’t always hold people back from being… eh… [expletive of your choice].
I think the pseudonymous nature of my blog and most of my internet writing (this network is the exception for me) arises from paranoia based on a few cyberspace interactions. Nothing on my blog is embarrassing, as far as I’m concerned, and nothing would get me into trouble at work or with friends. However, I’ve encountered some weird people on message boards and on blog comments threads, and at least one or two have seemed a bit creepy. Not in a fear-for-my-physical-safety kind of way, but rather in the sense that these individuals have way, way, way too much time on their hands (e.g. to check university websites and publications, and to appear suddenly and frequently at odd times on a given site). They’ll say that they’re going off to the pub, that they really have “important things to do IRL”, but in reality I suspect they’ve just stepped into the pantry for another bag of Cheez-Pufs and a can of Red Bull, to prepare for a string of sequential posts, or for a bit of interwebz detective work (LOL).
Thing is, if someone has decided to discredit you on teh interwebz, when that person finds out that you really do have degrees, publications, a lovely family, whatever-it-is-they-want-and-don’t-have, they’re going to be even more belligerent online, because now it’s necessary to invent new ways to dismiss you. I don’t think the internet creates such people…it just gives them yet another venue for being a sociopath, or just a plain old jerkwad.
Now, Kristi, you’re beginning to freak me out. I like people to know who I am, and that it’s me, but I am scrupulous about never showing a picture on the web of our kids. But what me and Mrs Gee have found is that our kids’ friends and friends’ parents are not so scrupulous. There are tweenies with Facebook pages, and photos everywhere … which might even include pics of our kids, without our knowledge. It is not as though the dangers of this are unknown, but people do seem naive about such things.
I think I shall change my online name to H. Hieronymous Horseposture. Just for a day or two. Just for fun.
As was already said before I think pseudonymes are no problem if they come with a history. There are cases in which anonymity is chosen for a reason, but in almost all cases I’ve encountered it it seems to me entirely out of cowardice. If asked, many people seem to claim they are afraid of whatever potential identity theft, but I think that’s mostly an excuse. The point is rather obviously if you’re anonymous you can’t be held responsible for what you say. That doesn’t mean an anonymous comment is necessarily insulting, but they are in the vast majority of cases incredibly annoying for one reason or the other. It’s the kind of commenter that thinks “I can just ask a stupid question”. And if it’s asked anonymously the question can be embarrasingly stupid indeed. I used to say there are no stupid questions, but blogging taught me otherwise. There are stupid questions, most importantly those that were answered really carefully in the text you wrote, but of course one would have had to read it. But hey, one can just ask a question, right?
I had a post on this a while ago, see Anonymity
Sorry, Henry, didn’t mean to freak anyone out, however briefly. Most people I know online are cautious about revealing personal information about their families, and I think that’s wise. I’m older GenX-vintage, and I’m much more squeamish and tetchy about posting personal information and photos online, than are the (mostly) GenY students. I don’t belong to any of the general social network sites, such as Facebook or Second Life, and I don’t intend to join, ever-but I have to accept that my photo may end up on someone else’s Facebook page, with other people at a university function or social gathering. For me, the potential consequences are trivial to nonexistent, but if it were my children (not that I have any, but I can empathize) in the photos, I’m sure I’d feel quite differently.
A psychiatrist colleague was telling me some of the funny sayings his dad (also a psychiatrist) has, and one in particular made me think of some of the blog comments threads (not here, but perhaps at the Seed Blogs)-
Never wrestle in the mud with a pig. You’ll just get dirty, and the pig will actually enjoy it.
@ Sabine – science is all about not being afraid to ask stupid questions, so people really shouldn’t feel shy about it. When I’m in UCLA I always visit Bill Schopf’s Wednesday Evening Evolution Group at the Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life – it’s an interdisciplinary event, everyone from molecular biologists to astrophysicists, and is usually a riot. It used to be the case that only faculty were allowed so they wouldn’t feel embarrassed to ask silly questions in front of their students.
@ David W: I read your comments with amazement. What sleazeballs thease people are… Kristi’s proverb about rolling in the mud with a pig seem most apposite.
Now then. Who is in this picture, and who is an imposter appearing as an actor’s voice? (Clue – one of them is Mrs H Hieronymous Horseposture. The other isn’t.)
We don’t do embroidery here, but was/is this one half of a set of Rembrandt curtains?
Thanks,
Boris J
I go back and forth on this a lot, and I think pseudonymity is liberating and anonymity often disrespectful. I have a blog persona that’s pretty close to who I am, without any naming of names and with some (gentle) identity fudging. I find that I am much more comfortable saying things I actually think, without sweetener added. But when I comment I comment as “myself” but without my actual name, and I think the knowledge of my “personality” and my blog adds perspective to any comments I may have. An anonymous comment comes without context and is therefore interpretable only in the first impression. Aside from the potential for rudeness, hatred and socially unacceptable levels of crudeness.
I don’t know if I feel this way because I blog about being a postdoc, and the various ups and downs. I don’t exactly fear reprisals, and in person am not shy about voicing the opinions I express pseudonymously on my blog, so I don’t know exactly why I’m not “out” yet. I just like the shelter, I suppose.
P.S. I love H.H. Horseposture…maybe pseudonyms are meant to fulfil one’s repressed cravings for alliteration?
NN – I do belive you’ve got it! All you need is Ned as a middle name. Personally, I like Fred God as a pseudonym. It’s just a pity it doesn’t alliterate.
I was musing on this a bit more, and I think there’s a difference between bloggers and commenters being pseudonymous, A blogger does have a reputation to uphold, so if they want to be respected they can’t act too much like an idiot. On the other hand, most commenters have less of a reputation, so feel freer to express themselves.
The University of Cromer’s Maison des Girrafes outpost is up.
I think you’re right, NN — nomenclature is important, because it provides a kind of shorthand that allows you to get an instant idea of the personality of the writer. Years ago I wrote a column on fatherhood for National Chikdbirth Trust branch magazines, under the pseudonym ‘Nostradadmus’. This allowed me to develop a persona that was a slightly exaggerated versionb of my normal self. When I wrote a column for TheOneRing.net I adopted a Tolkienian handle but it became confusing – sometimes I wanted to write under the pseudonym, at other times as me. Now I tend to write as myself. It’s easier. However, the persona that emerges as one writes is not necessarily the same one that exists in real life, even though the name is the same. Maxine will attest that I always arrive at the office soberly and conservatively dressed, and am so mouse-like that you’d hardly know I was even there.
Apologies for my strange comment immediately above Henry’s (who I see has now reverted to Henry!).
I thought I was posting that comment to Matt Brown’s map competition blog entry, apologies. (I have now posted it over there).
Maxine will attest that I always arrive at the office soberly and conservatively dressed, and am so mouse-like that you’d hardly know I was even there.
Er……..
Hi Henry,
Yes, of course, science is all about asking questions, and I myself have said a thousand times there are no stupid questions. What I was trying to communicate is that this is build on the hope that the person asking has used at least some neurons in his brain, and has a learning curve with first derivative larger than zero, which is by no means guaranteed if you’re writing a blog and allow anonymous comments. What I am talking about is the kind of question you get to a post about, say, the GZK cutoff, a post which elaborates in detail on the energy where you expect it. And then you get a comment of the form: “great post, just a stupid question, I always wanted to know at which energy the cutoff is?” And then there’s a multitude of completely unrelated questions that people re-repeat because they believe it’s such an intelligent question and don’t want to realize they didn’t even understand the basics. It gets very tiresome.
@ Sabine – I think that’s an unfortunate artifact of what Maxine said about the simultaneous intimacy and distance of the net. Asking a stupid question takes courage, which doesn’t apply to anonymous comments sent from just anybody, as there is no potential threat to one’s reputation. I don’t mind asking a silly question as my reputation is zero in any case …
I noticed that the Real Climate people have a special page on their blog, which provides their answers to the most common basic questions that people ask them about climate change. Then, if they get those types of questions Sabine identifies in comment threads, they (the bloggers) just refer the person to that web page.