On pseuds. All my accounts are my name or linked directly to it, in some form. My age-old stance was firmly anti-pseud. But that changed a few years ago. 1/7

As a junior prof I found one particular pseud #onhere to be particularly insightful. For me there's no substitute for in-person dialogue. I did a little digging, figured out who they might be, reached out, and asked to meet. They graciously agreed. 2/7

The meeting was all I'd hoped for: a real person, genuine, searingly opinionated, wise. They trusted my motives, and I trusted their decision to remain anonymous. We're not lifelong friends or anything, but that experience filled me with gratitude and optimism. 3/7

Why pseud? Without speaking for them, I constantly self-censor, and see the benefit of relieving some of that burden through a pseud account. The increasing cost of sharing unpopular opinions (maybe to career, but *definitely* to free time and good sleep) are obvious. 4/7

And the thing about opinions is that the popular ones are not terribly informative (anymore). Not that *unpopularity* matters: familiar-tasting food may be boring, but that doesn't make you want weird-tasting food. You want different-delicious. And so with opinions. 5/7

So: this singular pseud-meeting experience, because of the evidence it embodied, caused me to reflect, and moved my needle on pseuds. It's an anecdote, shared now because it feels useful as a certain recalibration occurs, one valence shell away from a recent horrorshow. 6/7

The story would be better (or at least richer) if I could say more -- I know. But I have no interest in deanonymizing this person, even by suggesting that they could be unearthed. Pseuds can be abused. And sometimes they're not. That's my story. 7/7