People in the rationalist community discussed his pseudonymous writing using his real name. Just searching the web for his real name would reveal his pseudonym even before all this.

He quit his old psychiatrist job and started a new one in addition to writing.

Scott published his own identity. That was his choice. Do you disagree with that? Is there some unwritten rule on the internet that you are anonymous as long as it's kinda a little bit difficult to figure it out?

He quit his job and started another business by using his notoriety. If his life truly was in danger he would have retired. Instead he's trying to make money from his followers with a new business!

> Scott published his own identity. That was his choice. Do you disagree with that?

No, he quite clearly was trying to keep the association between the psychiatry real identity and Scott Alexander. There would be no fucking discussion here if Scott intentionally meant to reveal his identity.

>Is there some unwritten rule on the internet that you are anonymous as long as it's kinda a little bit difficult to figure it out?

Yes, there is a reason it’s gotten its own term. And this is why many sites (like Reddit) have very explicit anti-doxxing rules.

> No, he quite clearly was trying to keep the association between the psychiatry real identity and Scott Alexander. There would be no fucking discussion here if Scott intentionally meant to reveal his identity.

Then why did he publish his own recognizable blog post with his full name here[1]?

[1] https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Technological_Singu...

Isn't there a difference between having your name in a book that likely doesn't get much circulation and therefore probably wouldn't damage your career from attention, and the literal New York Times outing your name?

Shouldn't we at least suggest these are significantly distinct events with very different ramifications for the author?

Don't argue that Scott didn't intentionally mean to reveal his identity if he himself intentionally chose to reveal his own identity.

I think it is fair to say that the author under the pseudonym of Scott Alexander didn't mean to provide an avenue for which his identity could be in a major, nationwide, widely-read source of news, when he republished an article under his real name in a relatively niche audience book that would unlikely have the same amount of circulation as the New York Times.

That's not what TeaDrunk was arguing.

You’re right, he’s probably working for NYTimes and this is a geurrilla marketing campaign. He didn’t want to stay anonymous and was using the name Scott Alexander for a decade for the build-up to this climax of made up events.