Pseudonyms: Pros and cons

The worst part about a pseudonym is that you can't take credit for your work -- which is only a problem if you happen to be incredibly vain. Another downside is that using a pseudonym in contemporary American society appears eccentric, and possibly a little paranoid.

A resoundingly obvious pro is that you are relatively sheltered from the fallout of absurd and offensive remarks. Go anonymity!
People will immediately understand that you are this kind of person however, so remarks by: "twizzle.twinkle.twilight.girl" will pretty much always be ignored.

Another thing that I have considered: given the well-know bias towards subconsciously favoring "pretty people;" if you are of average or above average appearance you should have a picture of yourself. Unless of course, you are prone to making embarrassing, potentially career-destroying statements (see previous paragraph.)
So if you use a pseudonym, do people assume that you are ugly?

Though if you depend on your pseudonym to guarantee absolute anonymity and if you broadcast a lot of information about yourself, then anyone can find out who you are and you are just another idiot on the Internet (who has probably chosen a ridiculous name from science fiction, and then mangled it.)
The good thing about making up a name (especially if your given name is common;) by making it ridiculous enough, you are the only person that comes up on a google search (of course no one bothers to google it, but that's beside the point.)

And Gauss said ..... Let there be lies

I like statistics as much as the next person.
The study of probabilities is useful (and really cool,) but there's one problem; we allow uneducated people to read. Worse (and more harmfully) we actually allow them to own televisions; in this way an effective assault of meaningless numbers can be expertly aimed at uninformed bystanders.
Not that being ignorant of advanced statistics makes someone stupid. In this situation it's more like collateral damage: people buried under the numerological fallout from incendiary discussions; initiated in all likelihood by more "experts." (I'm not sure how many undergraduates you need to have bludgeoned into submission to qualify as an "expert.")

Leaving the actual manipulation and misrepresentation of data alone, there is still a bias towards agreement with previous results. It's difficult to adjust to new information.
There are people who just go along with the (possibly skewed) facts that they learned in college 10, 20 or 30+ years ago (I know and love people like this.)
Or possibly it's because even statisticians do not understand their own work.

So the same people who have (or have not) been educated (correctly or incorrectly,) are also allowed to vote; about subjects they may not know about, with a didactic method that is terribly confusing if you happen to have picked up your only smatterings on Rush Limbaugh, The Colbert Report, and NBC news. Actually some professors are just as confusing. I take it all back, Rush.

I'm pretty sure the only solution is to create a dictatorial intelligentsia, headed by the disembodied spirit of John Stuart Mill.