Anonymity has a place, but people need to become more comfortable with attaching their identities to their ideas. (and we need more protections or enforcement for the consequesnces so people can actually feel safer)
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'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.
Yeah, well, you're not fooling anyone around these parts, Brian.
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.
"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....
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Times have changed a lot in the last 10 years. 10 years ago, I would have agreed with you.
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.
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.