I use pseudonymous accounts (such as this one) for things I can't say.[1] I work at a very progressive tech company, and I certainly would be fired if my true beliefs were known by my coworkers.

For uncontroversial stuff, I use my real name. That way I can get credit for useful technical ideas while avoiding having my career ruined. If you don't believe that can happen, I don't know what to tell you. There are plenty of low profile cases that don't make the news, but I'm sure everyone's heard of James Damore.

1. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Edit: I'd also like to pat myself on the back for recognizing this trend toward intolerance back in 2010 (when this account was created). Finally, my cynicism and pessimism pay off! And if you're wondering why my comments aren't always controversial, it's because I also use this account when I'm drunk and/or high.

> I certainly would be fired if my true beliefs were known

I've gone into work some days and there's been lines of cocaine railed up ready to go. (I haven't taken any drugs in over a month, for perspective). I sometimes hate my job, but I'm terrified of moving company to a culture I can't stand.

I made a throwaway account, for the future.

"I made a throwaway account, for the future."

Yeah, well, you're not fooling anyone around these parts, Brian.

To whom should I send my resume?

That's easy when your views are within the Overton window, but unless you are retired or live comfortably enough the reality is you probably shouldn't discuss controversial ideas on the internet using a real name, especially for younger people, this stuff can come back to haunt you employment wise.

Seen talented hardworking people fired because of tweets and our government contracts.

I'd argue this even extends to mundane topics like city planning, you never know who you can piss off. There's always someone to offend.

A thought experiment. I am an academic. I post the material below on the internet using my real name.

"there are more male geniuses in society than women because men are subject to more variability in terms of IQ. In other words, while men had more people at the tail ends of the IQ bell curve, women were more likely to have average IQ scores."

What will happen to my career ?

Larry Summers did that. Within 13 months, he was forced to resign from his job....

a more interesting thought experiment is what would happen if you described the same phenomenon, framed in a way which superficial and reactive people would agree with rather than disagree with:

"there are more male dunces in society . . . in other words, women were less likely to be dunces."

my guess is that it wouldn't be very destructive to your career at all -- but maybe i'm wrong on that point. of course, if i'm right, this effect would be entirely a result of incomplete or incorrect interpretation of the principles by the readers.

I would suggest a look at Excellence Without a Soul by Harry Lewis (sometime dean of Harvard College) before you conclude that it was only those comments that lost Summers his job.

Actually, I think that makes it even worse. That is, Summers was unpopular with particular groups for a bunch of different reasons, so he was eventually fired for the pretense of having the audacity to say that the possibility that innate gender differences could account for an imbalance in the sciences should be studied.

Regardless of what you think of Summers, read the exact transcript of what he actually said at that conference. The fact that he was fired for what he said should be incredibly shameful for Harvard.

What does this have to do with being an academic? Does this change if you're a notable employee of a company? I don't think so. If you are in a situation where your personal reputation effects the reputation of your employer then you need to take that into consideration when you speak publicly.

It's specifically about being an academic because this is the comment thread discussing: https://www.bbc.com/news/education-46146766

So far, J. Peterson (who's famously reported similarly) has retained his academic position.

Even the wording of your comment proves the parent's point.

Heh, and my internet handle shows my position. I originally created this handle years ago because I wanted to comment on a gender-related issue in technology, and I felt that doing so under my real name would only be a net negative for my career (software management). It's not that I felt I would be pilloried for my views, but I certainly didn't think (and still don't) that it would be anything but a neutral-to-net-negative impact, so why risk that just for the edification of making a random internet comment?

> but people need to become more comfortable with attaching their identities to their ideas.

You give no reason why that should be the case. Holding a controversial opinion and not being on your toes how you phrase things can easily provoke bans/deplatforming in many environments. It's a lot easier to just let another account bite the dust than tiptoe around things all the time just to maintain a persistent identity.

I feel like this is really easy to say when you are a ~mature adult~.

People change and grow up, the new generation(s) aren't given an opportunity to fuck up or express shitty opinions and learn from them because the internet never forgets.

Some stupid social media post or whatever can forever be attributed to them and be dug up later in life.

I'm just glad I'm in my 30's and don't have to go through puberty in a world with social media.

It doesn't matter if you're 30 or 50 or 60, there's all sorts of controversial opinions these days that are verboten. No, they're not all "shitty opinions".

What do you think your top couple most controversial opinions are? Anything outside what's generally accepted?

it sounds like you don't agree with any ideas that anyone with power over you and the will to exercise it finds objectionable -- which is great for you, but does not apply to many, many people all over the world.

I've had the same handle for so long, it's almost like my real name. The two are now so entwined that it would be hard for me to be anonymous as Jaruzel. So much so that a few years ago I just gave in and openly linked the two.

I rarely have a need to be anonymous online, and when I do, I do create a throwaway alias. i.e. i'm active on Twitter, but not as me. That place is WAY too toxic to openly tweet under your real name.

you can't experiment with new ideas if there are severe social consequences for experimentation.

because experimentation often fails. and public failures lead to getting discredited and kicked out of the discourse. people who experiment while using their real identities probably can't get back in.

see the appeal of pseudoanonymity?

Me too, but I consciously don't comment on many threads.

Tell that to many women who receive death threats for posting pretty much anything on the internet.

Times have changed a lot in the last 10 years. 10 years ago, I would have agreed with you.

Ostensibly this is what tenure is for.

1. Tenure alone does not get one soft benefits. Even these guys want power and money. So, they wanna become deans, then vice provost, provost, eventually President of some wealthy college. This soft power can get tenure jobs for one's girl friends.

2. Even if one gets a tenure, your students' won't get any jobs if you don't toe the line of the dominant themes in social sciences--identity politics, political correctness, knowledge/power, etc.

3. Intellectual honesty and integrity, core virtues of being an intellectual, is missing in the picture.

>But it does mean that the worst that can happen to you is that you stop being invited to the cool parties. In particular, when all is said and done, you'll have a stable job.

As a tenured professor, one wants more than a stable job and being invited to cool parties. One wants to attract student researchers, get grants, even find them post doctoral fellowships in other research groups, and in other countries, finally get them jobs. Otherwise, there is no intellectual legacy for one's research program, which is different from the dominant themes in social sciences. That's one way of destroying intellectual competitors in the academic arena.

But it does mean that the worst that can happen to you is that you stop being invited to the cool parties. In particular, when all is said and done, you'll have a stable job.