The Unintentional Online Meritocracy Experiment
Leveling the Digital Playing Field Through Anonymity
The Starfire Codes produces an audience-supported publication with a stellar podcast, consciousness-expanding daily spiritual content, and well-researched articles on forbidden but crucial topics.
If you love our work, please join our constellation of curious minds and venture into forbidden realms of knowledge.
Hit that like button!
Share with fellow seekers!
If you haven’t yet, please become a Paid Subscriber to support the cosmic quest for truth!
This is what we do full time. Thank you for all of the ways you support The Starfire Codes! It means the universe to us. 🌟
wrote an article on recently called “Digital Purdah as a Solution to Female Internet Brain,” in which he details his thoughts on curbing depression, anxiety, neurosis, and dysphoria through the advent of feminine anonymity in online spaces.
While I ordinarily would not engage on this topic because I am somewhat of an outlier and have felt that my experiences in this regard might not reflect the general or even be relatable to most, I thought that doing so might serve to highlight my experiences for others who do share them or might benefit from hearing them. While I do not believe my experiences are the norm overall, I do believe they are the norm for my particular small segment of the population from whom you may not often hear regarding a topic like this since most of us would prefer that our sex should only be a footnote to the footprint of our overall intellectual contributions. And, I feel, rightly so.
(Personally, I’m also not a fan of the distillation and compartmentalization of postmodern thought-isms into contrived boxes in an effort to make sense of a world of emergent complexity in overly simplistic ways that people then spend time fighting about or defending with little to no progress made in that arena - but that’s simply my preference as I’m often hard pressed to see the utility. Others may. Your mileage may vary.)
Based upon my own experiences online as a “gifted” female early internet adopter who has been both anonymous and known publicly, I suggested to John that cultivating a true meritocracy based solely upon the marketplace of ideas would require doubling down on the anonymity assertion which was central to his theme. It would mean implementing online anonymity for all.
Through an unintentional double life online, I explored how anonymity and gender assumptions shape intellectual respect and group dynamics. As an early adopter often addressed as "sir" when people were left to guess my gender, I confidently shared unconventional perspectives behind a veil of aliases in male-dominated spaces. My ideas were taken seriously on merit alone absent visible feminine identity cues. Yet asserting the very same concepts publicly under my real name with my real photo would often attract condescension and hostility from men who seemed to feel threatened by my intelligence.
This stark contrast revealed lingering gender biases that frame bold thought leadership from women as combative or questionable. It also reinforced arguments for pseudonymity in digital discourse to avoid appearances pre-judging the validity of ideas. Of course, baseline civility remains essential too - we control dialogue standards through what treatment we accept. Beyond gender, cognitive compatibility and curiosity may drive rapport even more than the natural biological differences and conventional attractors between the sexes, outliers aside. My accidental research highlighted how online spaces lay bare societal biases but can also foster meritocracies where substantive ideas compete freely.
I go into further detail regarding my observations and experiences below. Please feel free to comment or ask questions. I look forward to reading about your own experiences and observations regarding this topic.
Special thanks to , , , , , , , , , , , and many others for participating in this conversation with me.
As an early internet adopter in the 1990s when online communities remained dominated by men, I spent years operating under various aliases in niche forums. Behind various usernames and avatars over the years, I comfortably participated in unconventional spaces which catered to my specific interests at the time.
My gender identity held minimal relevance during these formative digital experiences, unless it happened to come up in conversation that I was female, which was often followed by the usual joke “there are no women on the internet,” and without fail, someone who knew me in real life would vouch that I was, in fact, female.
Without photos or real names attached to sparse profiles that offered limited information on the person posting, merit trumped appearances as the premier currency of credibility. I confidently discussed complex concepts, leveraged expertise, posed questions, and asserted strong opinions. Ideas competed on substantive factual weight rather than the identity of the person who uttered them aloud. And I was taken seriously.
In certain spaces perceived as more performative or prone to interpersonal drama, some users even presumed that I was male given my authoritative communication style. “Sir” occasionally punctuated responses addressed to me. It became an inside joke among those running the rooms who knew my identity. We’d privately laugh at these occasional slip-ups betraying my female status despite usernames and avatars that should have given it away to anyone paying the least bit of attention.
This dynamic revealed this lingering “no girls on the internet” assumption, albeit said mostly in jest. The environment’s tunnel vision coded it masculine by default. My recurrent existence remained improbable or up for debate and amusement otherwise. Of course, that very presumption granted me a cloak of credibility absent the usual visual signifiers.
Double Standards Emerge in Mixed-Gender Digital Participation
For years, I obscured my perceived gender online in certain spaces, and I was always respected for the content of my thoughts. My unconventional ideas landed well, endorsed by an assumption of male identity. Having my perspectives seriously considered based solely on their evidentiary merit revealed how much discussions benefit when substantive ideas compete freely, unencumbered by assumptions rooted in personal attributes.
The direct contrast between respect granted behind a veil of aliases versus skepticism facing my openly female status underscored the obstacles identity often injects into evaluating contributions themselves. Anonymity cleared that excess baggage away, enabling a cleaner focus on conceptual analysis. Having my perspectives seriously considered solely based on their evidentiary weight revealed firsthand how anonymity enabled discussions to focus on substantive merit rather than get derailed by personal attributes.
Yet this positive dynamic inverted immediately once I began openly participating under my real identity on today’s social platforms. My ability to accurately predict likely reactions needed rapid recalibration to account for visible gender identity suddenly overshadowing contributions. The very same talking points now attracted knee-jerk skepticism and condescension clearly stemming from my being a woman.
Suddenly intensely intimate knowledge of the subject matter I studied and immersed myself in proved “improbable.” Bold geopolitical opinions got framed as “emotional” rather than analytical. Holding my ground was met with ad hominem attacks. Hard-won credibility collapsed without the shield of anonymity. The whiplash from this stark contrast felt socially jarring. When perceived as male, my unconventional opinions were met with interest and respect. But openly identified as female, the exact same perspectives faced automatic skepticism and demands for extensive proof - revealing unconscious bias.
I was no longer “sir.”
I was “bitch.”
What gets coded as valuable contribution appears to hinge partially upon the perceived gender of who said it. While individuals hold complex worldviews, patterned behaviors persist around group identity stereotypes as cultural shortcuts until actively disproven otherwise in practice.
In many online realms, male still functions as the default norm with women viewed as atypical participants. So asserting informed opinions from a female account in male-dominated communities often requires first overriding doubts around gendered credibility presumptions before ideas themselves get evaluated on merit alone. My experiences showed me directly how identity sometimes impedes open engagement with contributions themselves.
Anonymity Versus Identity in Fostering Meritocratic Discourse
My experiences directly revealed how anonymity and assumptions shape online discourse from the very first impressions. Obscuring demographic identifiers through pseudonyms enabled ideas to compete purely on substantive merit rather than facing knee-jerk bias rooted in appearances or identities. Judging contributions absent explicit visual stereotype cues helped distinguish evidentiary value.
Of course, productive debate also relies on baseline mutual civility - another variable enforced in a lopsided manner. These insights highlighted why many advocate anonymity to counterbalance entrenched differentials that can distort discourse. Mitigating quick judgments about contributors themselves allows more focus on evaluating idea merit properly.
Ongoing debates around platform “real names” requirements further showcase this tension; transparency risks enabling harassment based on identities rather than ideas while anonymity risks dodging accountability. Thus we must weigh tradeoffs carefully. We reject censorship and craft culture through what we permit and promote organically.
Relationship Between Communication Style and Gender Norms
In response to my unintentional gender-based research, some suggested only “neurodivergent” women tend to communicate indistinguishably from men in digital spaces. While I am not what would typically be considered “neurodivergent,” my giftedness and my highly intuitive traits, as well as my high level of confidence in communicating my ideas, may have acted as contributing factors to the way in which I was misperceived when maintaining anonymity.
My somewhat atypical upbringing in this regard focused more on intellectual prowess, emotional strength, resilience, sense of humor, and overall capability than any sort of conformity to traditional femininity, and to be fair, the reverse would have been boring to me as a person who requires constant intellectual challenge for fulfillment. Combined with predominantly befriending intelligent, ambitious men, I adopted more "masculine" thought patterns and debate styles from my environment. In an environment where everyone was inherently attractive, brains were emphasized over appearances.
Of course clear gendered communication differences exist, and socialization impacts behaviors greatly. But individual variation is important too. Not all women default to conflict-averse consensus building in discourse, just as not all men gravitate toward hierarchical positioning. The reason I boil this interaction style down to having a high level of confidence is that most women are trained to seek consensus, which often includes unnecessary apologizing and finding ways to sidestep into tenuous agreements to avoid conflict. I don’t tend to have that particular crutch.
Generally, neurodivergent individuals, like those with ADHD or highly sensitive/intuitive traits for instance, display less concern for social norms. But traditional gender expectations can still influence beliefs and discussions despite cognitive wiring. It comes down to complex interplay among various impacts upon both nature and nurture.
Outliers exist, especially when complexly developed preferences based upon thoughtful consideration over time overrule societal programming, allowing individuals to choose their own behavior, breaking accepted patterns through self-awareness and conscious choice. This is neither inherently positive nor negative. It is simply a thought pattern more prevalent in those wired to question everything in order to entertain possibilities of finding more suitable answers than those we were handed through rote memorization and forbidden to question.
In choosing for my own behavior dynamics, personally, I will not take on masculine energy as my default in a relationship setting. I leave masculine energy in the realm of professional activities and intellectual pursuits because these are inherently masculine oriented environments and to engage within them requires the implementation of that particular energy - but as a choice, not as a default. Relationship dynamics, and even physical health if the biochemistry is impacted, suffer from feminines taking on masculine energy. And even in that assertion, let alone in its execution, I would be an outlier.
Relationship compatibility also depends heavily on intellectual alignment. Heterosexual partners closer in IQ with emphasis on knowledge exchange tend to fare better through having and pursuing resonant life values. With intelligence at a premium, men choosing women within a ±15 IQ point spread proves an intimate sweet spot for compatibility and longevity.
So in many areas, from communication to partnerships, cognitive compatibility with qualities like curiosity and insight sharing may eclipse attraction as the most salient metric for rapport. There are always outliers, but resonant mindsets enable deeper relationships. Over years spent in digital communities and witnessing relationships across belief spectra, I’ve found consistent value alignment far more important for mutual rapport than simplistic attributes.
Of course neurodivergence also contributes additional textural dimensions through shifting sensorial perceptual filters, social orientation, and information processing flow relative to common behavioral landmarks. Those wiring variations further multiply the kaleidoscopes of cognitive pattern possibilities.
While trends emerge through the socialization noise, individual agency continues asserting itself through unique remixes of influences shaping us over time. Those of us who are consciously choosing optimal behavioral paradigms for ourselves are authoring a dynamic memetic imprint binding external stimuli with innate self-guided curiosity.
Digital Community Dynamics Manifest Through Participant Choices
Similarly, collective digital cultures emerge bottom up based on who earns attention and engagement. Over time, feedback loops tilt communities toward constructiveness or toxicity through the incentives empowered. Homogeneity develops organically by those who stay over those who leave when discomfort overwhelms shared purpose. Discourse norms manifest through what commentary we choose to accept or reject.
In other words, no top down rules govern inevitable subcultures spawning through the decentralized architecture of internet communities. Niches simply coalesce around the signals that members amplify. We craft shared digital experiences through how individuals choose to interact.
For example, early web forums often displayed intense debate. But since participants shared core goals, discussions proved productive even if they were fiery and animated. Bonds within tribes held firm through skirmishes because mutual philosophical commitment never fundamentally wavered.
In contrast, modern social platforms dominated by artificially stoked outrage and validation-seeking degrade communities despite identical technical affordances. Unlike niche forums, these generalized big tent environments insecurely grasp for mass appeal, destroying nuance and alienating outliers. Participants must perpetually appease fickle majority tastes rather than sustain a culture serving an overall purpose.
Digital communities emerge through the collective small actions of individual participants over time. Underlying assumptions often form an unspoken status quo, where existing norms prove easier to unconsciously perpetuate than consciously eliminate. Yet no consensus gets imposed entirely without the tacit cooperation of members themselves continually reinforcing values through ongoing participation incentives they respond to, whether deliberately or inadvertently.
In essence, while implicit biases shape the formation of online spaces both intentionally and unintentionally, the ultimate discourse standards manifest from the bottom up based on what behaviors members choose to reward or reject through interactions accumulating as culture. So the incentives and signals provided by voluntary engagement at scale determine the foundations upon which community dynamics stand, construct, or corrode. We shape digital culture through modeling desired behaviors. Doing so fosters emergent communities aligned with constructive values. We get the discourse we tolerate so we must model the change we want to see.
Anonymity Versus Openness Depends on Purpose and Platform
When it comes to anonymity in digital spaces, no universally best choice exists given situational variables. Pseudonyms help focus connections on shared interests and merit withn the marketplace of ideas rather than appearances. But transparency boosts accountability to enable reputation building. Intentional discretion proves useful while secrecy breeds distrust.
My early experiences and my experiences in spaces with strict opsec rules of engagement in which my identity was falsely presumed reinforced what should be obvious, that no attribute intrinsically negates an individual’s viewpoints. Judging ideas only on evidentiary merit remains crucial. Yet visibility enables clarity and vulnerability fosters trust in cooperative efforts over time. So purpose and context should guide decisionmaking when it comes to choosing when to be seen or unseen.
In the end, digital architectures empower a broad spectrum of expression both wonderfully and dangerously. Creating vibrant environments for deep diving into ideas requires intentional curation, but only as far as maintaining an agreement among users as to what constitutes civil discourse. No matter which venues are chosen, individuals will demonstrate their true colors over time, and the rest of the community will act accordingly. So reputation continually earns respect and consistency builds trust. These factors guide relationships more than any attributes.
Out of everyone commenting, only two have shown any sort of disrespect, which serves to prove another point: Everyone on Substack is so awesome that anonymity is NOT required here. WOW.
Thank you, everyone, for making this place AMAZING.
I don't think that the male/female divide is the only issue in which anonymity makes a difference. I think there are dozens of ways in which we react to people based upon their percieved status.
Suppose there was an argument going on between 'Tiger' and 'Lion'... ie two anonymous internet aliases. And Tiger and Lion were going back and forth about some issue of politics. I suggest that that entire conversation would look very different, to the participants and to the audience (who were all chipping in) if instead of 'Tiger and Lion' the participants had been known as "Ben Shapiro and Robert Reich' or 'Joe Biden and Donald Trump' or even 'Robert Redford and Tom Hanks' etc etc.
We have all been trained (and I would argue properly trained) from infancy to treat different people differently. We can say 'give me that toy!' to a friend we were playing with... but not our mother. At least, not without consequences :)
And it works both ways. Seriously both ways. Females who are known and females (and celebrities, etc) expect you to act differently.. and act differently.
As far as the use of 'Sir' I would suggest that it isn't as significant as it seems. The English language lacks a neutral equivalent. It is not nearly as gendered as French (and don't get me started on German) but if anyone were to take a fiction book and try to rewrite it to make it completley gender anonymous they would find, for most stories, that the end result would be ugly, almost unreadable, English. And in French or German... impossible. You cannot say 'The' in either language without gender, or 'red', or 'little'.
As we discussed before, I think it would be fascinating to try to work up a list of 'clues' for female vs male speech (average! speech). And to run an experiment where people look at a long form discussion and try to guess the gender of the participants after removing all overt clues. (And not one where we have fudged it by including people who are non-traditional).
Thanks for the mention :)