[edanm]

> I’m probably missing part of the background here, I’m new to the controversy. Did some kind of mystery arise around the true identity of the author?

Not really.

Originally, the blog was pseudonymous. It was the first and middle name of the author, which he did because he's a psychiatrist who didn't want someone Googling his real name and finding his blog (for various professional and personal reasons).

But it wasn't exactly hidden super well - I found out his full name kind of by accident while googling for some random info about him, it would take most people a few minutes to find his name I imagine. This was ok by him because he mostly wanted to protect the reverse direction - someone googling his full name and finding his blog, not the other direction of someone finding his blog and discovering his full name (mostly - not exclusively).

In any case, after a year of "arranging his life" to allow him to do so, as he puts it, he is now publishing under his full name.

[bnj]

This is really helpful context, thanks!

I don't really get why the NYT wanted to publish his name against his wishes. At first I thought it was sensationalism but I read elsewhere that the regular readership of the blog was estimated at around 8.5 thousand. No idea if that's right but if it's within an order of magnitude then I rather think the NYT should have more pressing stories to develop.

[edanm]

I mean, on the one hand the readership is higher than that but probably not crazy high. On the other hand, his readers really are fairly influential, so I think he really is worthy of an article in the NYT. (I mean I'm a huge fan of his as well and think he's one of today's leading intellectuals, so I might be biased)

The NYT initially said they wanted to publish his name because of editorial policy. The reported said it was kind of being forced on him because "them's the rules" or something like that.