Peter Boettke complained that they cause more harm than good due to their immunity against the necessary social function of shaming. It’s not hard to figure how he came to that conclusion given his recent experience with “Beefcake the Mighty” and other nyms chosen by that character (although if you were previously unaware that Pete is heavy and Tom Palmer is gay you might have learned something from them). In the comments I argued against that in favor of Hopefully Anonymous’ view that more people should use pseudonyms, I even said that scientists and journalists should publish some of their work in that manner. I also gave a number of examples of people who lost their jobs for airing controversial views. The comments died out there, but I thought it a worthwhile enough topic to have it here as well.
Speaking of real vs fake names, one of my favorite commenters who previously just went by “Tino” now blogs at Super-Economy under his full name. He previously contributed to Truck and Barter, but not for very long.
Entitled to an Opinion 
January 13, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Peter likely does not have a lot of experience inside of largely pseudonymous social networks. Truth is, shaming works there just as well. Over time, loose groups of like-minded people are formed and common sets of rules are crystallized and enforced. The main enforcing factor is just that, shaming. The exception of outright trolls who only want to be disruptive only confirms that rule.
Nyms on Internet serve many useful functions, it’s ridiculous to object to them.
January 14, 2010 at 9:45 am
It may be unpleasant to discover that someone thinks that you’re full of shit, but it can also be useful to know, as well as intellectually stimulating, and this isn’t something that you’re likely to hear in a “real world” conversation, for all sort of reasons having nothing to do with their opinion of your opinion.
One thing I like about blog comment disputes, and maybe wars, is you get a little better insight into how other people actually gauge the world, and how tenaciously their opinion on a given issue differs from your own. You also see how vain people are (me included) regarding their own pet worldview. Everybody likes to be agreed with, nobody likes to be disagreed with, and everything else is a lie. Neverthless, seeing this process in action maybe reminds one to be a bit less susceptible to tendencies in this direction.
It seems to me that Boettke (whoever he is) is arguing – more or less – that polite speech trumps, or should trump, honest, blunt, sometimes insulting speech as a means of inquiry. I don’t see why that should necesarily be the case, particularly given a venue toward which some people gravitate in part because discussion is not always encumbered by the usual social niceties. We have enough bullshit to sort through in the realms of work and family as it is.
And if you disagree, well, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
January 14, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Nanonymous, any exemplary examples of pseudonymous social networks you’ve got in mind?
Dr. Horsemeat, agreed. One of my favorite things about Hopefully Anonymous is his willingness to proclaim “Bullshit!” to even his preferred writers.
I think Boettke’s point is more general than one of politeness vs rudeness. He is imagining internet discussions as something of a commons, which means it is prone to degradation unless a mechanism prevents it.
January 14, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Re: pseudonymous social networks
My personal experience is mainly with Usenet. Many “stable” newsgroups are largely pseudonymous. And then there are gaming communities, warez communities, hacker communities, recovering addicts communities and what-have-you communuties – on and off WWW. Ever heard of the cDc? :-)
January 15, 2010 at 7:48 am
I disagree with the idea that pseudonymous commenters can’t be stigmatized. A pseudonym is like a put option, you sell off some of your potential profit (in status) for the ability to ditch the portfolio if it becomes to lousy, or risky. Purely anonymous comments are another story, and probably the result of new commenters testing the water for the first time.
Having a pseudonym seems like the dominant strategy if you aren’t completely confidant about your game, or you know you have some pretty offensive ideas. Either way, it seems like the practice increases useful discussion, as people are more able to change their positions over time without having to worry about large losses in social status.
January 15, 2010 at 9:21 am
stephen makes a very good point, or couple of points.
January 16, 2010 at 12:56 pm
“Nanonymous, any exemplary examples of pseudonymous social networks you’ve got in mind?”
Yours, of course.
Stephen, good analogy. You should blog.
HA, right back at you with the compliment.
Given the role of the Federalist Papers in the national mythology, I’m surprised there isn’t more social support for anonymous social epistemological participation. I suppose it’s a coordination of the non-anonymous.
January 16, 2010 at 12:56 pm
“HA, right back at you with the compliment.”
Should read “TGGP, right back at you with the compliment.”
January 16, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Ever heard of the cDc?
I’d heard of the Center for Disease Control, but I had not heard of what you appear to be referring to until this.
stephen, interesting way of thinking about it.
HA, I was going to mention the Federalist/Anti-federalist papers but forgot to. From around that time period, Burke also wrote his Vindication of Natural Society under a pseudonym and then claimed it was a joke when his authorship was revealed. Roderick Long also suggests that Montaigne used a pseudonym to voice radical ideas.
January 21, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Those are interesting links. I think Long is incorrect, but he’s a good read all the same.
January 17, 2010 at 4:23 pm
[…] TGGP – “In Defense of Pseudonyms” […]
January 22, 2010 at 5:40 am
what is a pseudonym? lung is just another lung on the escalation ladder
February 2, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Does shaming really work in an internet community anyway? Especially since we have an entire genre of comedy devoted to selectively depicting people as stupid (usually with captioned pictures) or comedians and pundits alike who write long hateful screeds and get the front page of Digg for it?
Does shame mean anything in the age of Encyclopedia Dramatica?
Shaming has become the national pastime, how can we take it seriously as a behavior modifier?
February 2, 2010 at 3:51 pm
I don’t think people would even bother to engage in it if it didn’t work at all.
February 3, 2010 at 7:43 am
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. If it once did work, or was once popular perceived as working, then people would continue to try it even as it’s usefulness declined.
The only good modern example of large scale shaming I can find is with people like you and Mencius Moldbug and others who have ideas rather different from the accepted norm of political discussion. Someone with such beliefs will probably never get on CNN but they still have large niche followings.
Intra-niche shaming on the other hand might make sense but public (or perhaps just inter-niche) shaming seems to have lost a large amount of it’s effectiveness now that insults and unflattering depictions have become the norm in any discussion.
February 4, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I guess I was thinking of “niche shaming” in the context of Ostrom & blogs. Could you elaborate on “large scale shaming”? It doesn’t seem well-defined.
February 5, 2010 at 8:42 am
Take white supremacy for instance. It has been the subject of large scale, or pop culture, shaming to the point where it is commonly shamed. However white supremacy still has areas of dedicated open discussion on the internet.
By large scale I mostly meant inter-niche shaming like the campaigns to get people to stop using the word gay as a pejorative. People who use the word gay as a pejorative usually belong to groups who could care less about the opinion of the kind of people who would wage such a campaign.
inter-niche large scale shaming may have worked when all members of a community shared a common niche (like member of the community, or member of said church, or town meeting pundit) that allowed one niche to thus infuence another through overlap but in the modern age any and every niche can easily ignore shaming campaigns and seek self-reinforcing refuge amonst their own.
As for comments. Imagine a user who posts regularly at Daily Kos and trolls regularly at RedState with the same monicker (or vice versa). Shaming will not stop them from trolling unless it’s shaming from their own niche. The internet is not a single community where standing can be hurt but rather multiple discreet communities where standing in one does not effect standing in another.
So, to me, modern shaming would only work under hghly specific circumstances when it comes from someone of respect from the shamee’s social clique. And that niches are becoming more self-contained (less overlap) and more self-reinforcing through the internet so shaming’s effectiveness is waning and it does no good to try to shame someone unless you are already in their social circle.
February 6, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Yes, inter-niche shaming is more difficult. People don’t have to read ideological opponents and may be apt to dismiss whatever they say. I think that trolls tend to be fly-by-night sort of phenomena, like vandals. Most don’t bother to do so persistently. I succeeded in shaming one such specimen though.